Dunsmuir

(after stating the facts as above). The plaintiff in error contends that there is no evidence to support the finding of the District Court that Alexander Dunsmuir was domiciled in San Francisco at the time of his death, and to sustain that contention presents to this court by a bill of exceptions the testimony received in the court below.

*202 [1] Under the provisions of Act March 3, 1865, 13 Stát. 501, Rev. St. §§ 649, 700 (U. S. Comp. St. 1913, §§ 1587, 1668), the rule is well settled that if a jury trial is waived, and a general finding is made by the court, review in an appellate Court is limited to such rulings of the trial court in the progress of the trial as are presented by a bill of exceptions, and that the bill of exceptions cannot be used to bring up the oral testimony for review. Norris v. Jackson, § Wall. 125, 19 L. Ed. 608 ; Dirst v. Morris, 14 Wall. 484, 491 , 20 L. Ed. 722 ; Grayson v. Lynch, 163 U. S. 468 , 16 Sup. Ct. 1064, 41 L. Ed. 230 ; Streeter v. Sanitary District of Chicago, 133 Fed. 124 , 66 C. C. A. 190 ; Hill v. Walker, 167 Fed. 241, 256 , 92 C. C. A. 633 ; W. L. Perkins & Co. v. Von Baumbach, 185 Fed. 265 , 107 C. C. A. 371 ; New York Life Ins. Co. v.…