Snell

Snell v. Payne

Good Law
115 Cal. 218·1896 Cal. LEXIS 997·46 P. 1069
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 7, 1896S. F. No. 403California813 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

This action was brought by the plaintiff Snell to foreclose a lien for materials furnished for and used in the construction of certain buildings on the land of defendant Payne. After plaintiff had introduced his evidence the defendant moved for a nonsuit. The nonsuit was granted and judgment entered for defendant; the plaintiff appeals from the judgment upon the judgment-roll and a bill of exceptions.

Respondent contends that the merits of the appeal cannot be considered because the bill of exceptions does not contain any specification of errors; but this contention cannot be maintained, because it has been frequently held by this court that a bill of exceptions, except as to the ground that a finding or decision is not supported by the evidence, need not contain specifications of error. (Reay v. Butler, 69 Cal. 572 ; Shadburne v. Daly, 76 Cal. 355 ; Hagman v. Williams, 88 Cal. 146 .)

The grounds upon which the motion for a nonsuit was made do not appear, except so far as they may be gathered from findings which the court filed at the time the motion was granted; but these so-called findings cannot be considered where the case was decided upon a motion for nonsuit. It appears,…

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.