Bryson

This is plaintiff’s appeal from the judgment. Defendants also appealed from the judgment, and from a refusal of a new trial: L. A. No. 279, 121 Cal. 153 , 53 Pac. 637 . In that case the facts are stated more at large, and many of the points also involved in this appeal are discussed.

Plaintiff insists that, upon the findings, he is entitled to a more favorable judgment. He has, however, greatly discredited his contention by bringing up in a bill of exceptions all the evidence respecting the relations between plaintiff and *36 defendants subsequent to March 1, 1892, and regarding any extension of time for completing the contract, and any waiver of damages, and also in regard to the cost of producing ice, and the expenditure of $1,800 for water-power, and $243.19 for ammonia. If the contention is only that appellant is entitled to a different judgment upon the findings, there can be no use for a bill of exceptions to bring up the evidence. And yet appellant’s brief refers indifferently to the facts found and what the evidence shows. I presume counsel realize that the findings must be supplemented upon the points with reference to which they have brought up the evidence. Still,…