Bohnert

Bohnert v. Bohnert

Good Law
1892 Cal. LEXIS 845·95 Cal. 444·30 P. 590
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 29, 1892No. 14893California683 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Paterson, J.

This is an action for divorce, and th e custody of a minor child. The court found the charge of adultery to be true as alleged in the complaint, and ren *445 dered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, dissolving the bonds of matrimony, and awarding to him the custody of the child.

In their brief, counsel for appellant discuss a large number of errors alleged to have been committed by the court during the trial; but as there is no specification Of error in the statement, they cannot be considered. (Ferrer v. Home Mut. Ins. Co., 47 Cal. 427 ; Fleming v. Albeck, 67 Cal. 227 ; Pico v. Cohn, 67 Cal. 258 .) The statute provides that “ when the notice designates as the ground of the motion errors in law occurring at the trial, and excepted to by the moving party, the statement shall specify the particular errors upon which the party will rely.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 659.) The object of this provision is apparent: it is to enable the adverse party to prepare his amendments without the necessity of going through the statement proposed by the moving party to ascertain what objections, rulings, and exceptions are incorporated therein. Unless the alleged errors are specifically pointed out,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.