Rousseau

This is an appeal from a judgment against the defendant and from an order denying his motion for a new trial in an action for services rendered by plaintiffs as architects.

Defendant relies for a reversal of the judgment and order upon the insufficiency of the evidence. The only specification of such insufficiency is “That the evidence is wholly insufficient to justify a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.” We think, with the plaintiffs, that this is not a compliance with section 648 of the Code of Civil Procedure, requiring a specification of the particulars wherein the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision. (Matter of Baker, 153 Cal. 537 , [ 96 Pac. 12 ]; Meek v. Southern Cal. Ry. Co., 7 Cal. App. 607 , [ 95 Pac. 166 ]; Porter v. Counts, 6 Cal. App. 551 , [ 92 Pac. 655 ].) But as defendant claims that there is an entire absence of evidence to support the finding assailed—in which event he asserts that a specification of particulars is unnecessary (San Luis Water Co. v. Estrada, 117 Cal. 168 -184, [ 48 Pac. 1075 ])—we have examined the evidence, and will therefore rest our decision upon the principal point in the case, without further noticing respondents’ claim that…