Case ID: cal_86/html/0211-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Paterson, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 13733.
    Department One.
    — October 25, 1890.]
    MARY E. FLASHNER, Appellant, v. DAVID V. WALDRON, Respondent.
    Appeal — Exceptions—Nonsuit — Error of Law — Order Deemed Excepted to. — An order granting a nonsuit cannot be reviewed on appeal, • if no exception was taken to the ruling, as an error of law, at the time thereof. The order cannot be deemed to have been excepted to upon the ground that it is an order finally determining the rights of the parties, under section 647 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    
      Graff & Creighton, for Appellant.
    
      Smith, Winder & Smith, for Respondent.
   Paterson, J.

The court below granted a motion for nonsuit, and judgment followed 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.

Works, J., and Fox, J., concurred.