Legal Opinion

Flashner v. Waldron

California Supreme Court

Decided October 25, 1890No. 13733PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, 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 *212rights of the parties,” and “deemed to have been excepted to,” under section 647 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. Hanna v. De GarmoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Craig v. Hesperia Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Malone v. BeardsleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Johnson v. ManningIdaho Supreme Court · 1892
  5. Nelmes v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API