Case Name: SMITH v. MOULSON
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-06-21
Citations: 34 N.Y.S. 607
Docket Number: 
Parties: SMITH v. MOULSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 34
Pages: 607–608

Head Matter:
(88 Hun, 147.)
SMITH v. MOULSON.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.
June 21, 1895.)
Appeal—Exception—When Necessary.
A finding of fact without evidence presents a question of law, and cannot he reviewed unless an exception is taken.
Appeal from special term, Monroe county.
• ■ Action by Mary Smith against Maria Moulson to set aside a deed on the ground that it was fraudulently obtained, and was with out consideration. The complaint was dismissed, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before DWIGHT, P. J., and LEWIS, BRADLEY, and WARD, - JJ.
William E. Edmonds, for appellant.
F. E. Drake, for respondent.

Opinion:
WARD, J.
The principal objection raised to the judgment by the appellant is that the court found that a contract for the purchase of the land between the parties had not been made, and there was no evidence to support that finding. Where there is a finding of fact without evidence, an exception is necessary to bring the case up for review, as it is a question of law. Mead v. Smith, 28 Hun, 639; Underhill v. Nichols, 8 Wkly. Dig. 276; Healy v. Clark, 120 N. Y. 642, 24 N. E. 316. There was no exception to the ruling of the trial court, filed as required by section 994 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At all events, there should have been exceptions to the conclusion of law that the complaint be dismissed.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.