Flashner v. Waldron

24 P. 1063, 86 Cal. 211, 1890 Cal. LEXIS 1005
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 25, 1890
DocketNo. 13733
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 24 P. 1063 (Flashner v. Waldron) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Flashner v. Waldron, 24 P. 1063, 86 Cal. 211, 1890 Cal. LEXIS 1005 (Cal. 1890).

Opinion

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 [212]*212rights 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hanna v. De Garmo
73 P. 830 (California Supreme Court, 1903)
Craig v. Hesperia Land & Water Co.
40 P. 1057 (California Supreme Court, 1895)
Nelmes v. Wilson
34 P. 341 (California Supreme Court, 1893)
Johnson v. Manning
29 P. 101 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1892)
Malone v. Beardsley
28 P. 218 (California Supreme Court, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 P. 1063, 86 Cal. 211, 1890 Cal. LEXIS 1005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flashner-v-waldron-cal-1890.