Moore

— This action is, in a measure, a companion of Wolfskill v. Douglas, ante, p. 397, and much of the testimony taken was used in both actions.

The appeal is from the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and also from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. The judgment was rendered July 19, 1895, and the order denying a new trial, July 6, 1899; the notice of appeal was-filed July 17, 1899.

The appeal from the judgment, not having been taken in time, cannot be considered; and the appellant’s contention that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, and that the demurrer to the same should have been sustained, also that the judgment is not supported by the findings, and that the findings are contradictory and inconsistent with the pleadings, cannot therefore be considered, there being no appeal from the judgment. (Brison v. Brison, 90 Cal. 323 ; Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Fisher, 109 Cal. 566 ; Hall v. Susskind, 120 Cal. 559 ; Jenkins v. Frink, 30. Cal. 586; Roberts v. Eldred, 73 Cal. 394 .)

On the appeal from the order denying a new trial it is contended by the appellant that the court erred in overruling his objection to certain testimony and .denying his…