Case Name: CLAUDE WOOLMAN, Respondent, v. J. P. HAMMOND et al., Appellants
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1926-10-19
Citations: 79 Cal. App. 527
Docket Number: Civ. No. 3129
Parties: CLAUDE WOOLMAN, Respondent, v. J. P. HAMMOND et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 79
Pages: 527–528

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 3129.
Third Appellate District.
October 19, 1926.]
CLAUDE WOOLMAN, Respondent, v. J. P. HAMMOND et al., Appellants.
Hamilton & Lindley for Appellants.
Joseph H. Egermayer and H. C. Liggett for Respondent.

Opinion:
FINCH, P. J.
The defendants Hammond and Lee prosecute this appeal from the judgment herein upon the judgment-roll and a bill of exceptions.
Appellant's sole contention is that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision and judgment in that no consideration for their agreement, upon which the suit is based, was proved. The only specification of insufficiency of the evidence contained in the bill of exceptions is as follows: "Appellant takes exception to the decision and judgment of the court herein on the ground that the same are not supported by the evidence."
"No particular form of exception is required, but when the exception is to the verdict or decision, upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify it, the objection must specify the particulars in which such evidence is alleged to be insufficient. The objection must be stated, with so much of the evidence or other matter as is necessary to explain it, and no more." (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 648.)
It is settled by a long line of decisions that such a specification as the one under consideration is insufficient. (Gosliner v. Briones, 187 Cal. 557, 558 [204 Pac. 19]; Williams v. Bullock Tractor Co., 186 Cal. 32, 39 [198 Pac. 780]; Carter v. Canty, 181 Cal. 749, 752 [186 Pac. 346]; Millar v. Millar, 175 Cal. 797, 799 [Ann. Cas. 1918E, 184, L. R. A. 1918B, 415, 167 Pac. 394]; Hawley v. Harrington, 152 Cal. 188, 189 [92 Pac. 177]; Agalianos v. American Central Ins. Co., 62 Cal. App. 349, 364 [217 Pac. 107]; Clarkson v. Moir, 53 Cal. App. 775, 776 [201 Pac. 474].) It may be stated further that an examination of the evidence shows that there was a sufficient consideration for the agreement.
The judgment is affirmed.
Plummer, J., and Hart, J., concurred.