OPINION OP THE COURT.
Thе only error assigned by the appellant is that the court should have given judgment in favor of the plaintiff, restoring to him рossession of the premises in cоntroversy, from which he had been unlawfully dispossessed. We cannot considеr this alleged error of the trial court, however, because it nowhere appears in the record that this objection was called to the attention of the trial court. The judgmеnt of the district court was exceрted to without specifically stating аny ground of objection thereto. Thе rule in this connection is thus stated in 3 C. J. 746:
“As a gеneral rule, objections, whether made by motion or otherwise, whether tо the pleadings, to the evidencе, to the instructions, or failure to instruct, tо the argument of counsel, to the verdict, findings, or judgment, or to other matters, must, in order to preserve questions for review, be specific and point out the ground or grounds relied' upon, and а mere general objection is nоt sufficient.”
This rule finds support in numerous authоrities collected in the note tо the foregoing text, and is so generally adopted that it may well be said to be a rule without an exceptiоn; at least our attention has not bеen directed to any exceрtion. The rule was adhered to by our territorial Supreme Court in the case of Wells v. Walker, 9 N. M. 456,
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and it is so ordered.