From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Flashner v. Waldron

Supreme Court of California
Oct 25, 1890
86 Cal. 211 (Cal. 1890)

Opinion

         Department One

         Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

         COUNSEL:

         Graff & Creighton, for Appellant.

          Smith, Winder & Smith, for Respondent.


         JUDGES: Paterson, J. Works, J., and Fox, J., concurred.

         OPINION

          PATERSON, Judge

         The court below granted a motion for nonsuit, and judgment followed [24 P. 1064] for the defendant. The plaintiff took no exception to the ruling. It is claimed that no exception was necessary, but it has been several times decided that an error in granting a nonsuit is an error in law, and must be excepted to. It is unnecessary, therefore, for us to consider the argument of counsel for appellant in support of his contention that the order granting a nonsuit is an order "finally determining the rights of the parties," and "deemed to have been excepted to," under section 647 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

         Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Flashner v. Waldron

Supreme Court of California
Oct 25, 1890
86 Cal. 211 (Cal. 1890)
Case details for

Flashner v. Waldron

Case Details

Full title:MARY E. FLASHNER, Appellant, v. DAVID V. WALDRON, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Oct 25, 1890

Citations

86 Cal. 211 (Cal. 1890)
24 P. 1063

Citing Cases

Hanna v. De Garmo

The bill must affirmatively show that the ruling assigned as error actually took place at the trial and was…

Malone v. Beardsley

The law must now be regarded as settled in this state, that an error in granting a nonsuit is an error in…