La Mar v. La Mar

Plaintiff recovered a judgment quieting her title to property in the city of San Bernardino. In attacking this judgment the defendant assigns the following errors: (1) Error of the trial court in denying his motion for non-suit. (2) Error in permitting, over objection, the cross-examination of defendant in a matter about which he had not- testified in his direct examination. (3) Error in permitting plaintiff to make out a new case by way of rebuttal. (4) That the judgment is contrary to law. (5) That a deed dated October 21, 1929, from defendant to plaintiff was void and does not support the judgment for the following reasons: (a) It was without consideration, (b) The contents were neither alleged nor proved, (c) It was obtained by duress, force and undue influence amounting to extortion, (d) It was obtained by the plaintiff wife from her husband while he was aged and very feeble and without his having independent advice.

It has long been the rule in California that any error of a trial court in denying a motion for nonsuit is cured, if, at the close of the trial, there is evidence before the court, supplying the defects in the plaintiff’s proofs. (9 Cal. Jur. 564; 2 Cal. Jur.…