17 P.2d 759 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1932
Heretofore the respondent made a motion to dismiss this appeal, which motion was denied. (*Cal.App.) 14 P.2d 127. [1]
He has now moved for an affirmance of the judgment upon the ground that the appellant has failed to print sufficient of the record to justify a reversal, and in particular he points to the fact that the only point raised by appellant is that the court erred in its refusal to direct a verdict in its favor. This claimed error is founded upon an instruction requested by appellant and refused by the court directing *262
the jury to return a verdict for the defendant and against the plaintiff. The respondent argues that appellant cannot predicate his claim of error upon a refusal to give the instruction but must have made a motion for a directed verdict, and if that were denied, to have taken an exception to the order of the court. He cites in support of his contention Estate of Easton,
Motion denied.
Works, P.J., and Stephens, J., pro tem., concurred.