
    [No. 6,103.]
    PHILLIPS v. LOWREY et al.
    Appeae—Motion fob Hew Tbtal—Biel of Exceptions—Specifications.
    Appeal from an order denying a new trial, in the Nineteenth District Court, City and County of San Francisco. Wheeler, J.
    The questions in the case were: 1st, whether the land in controversy was included in a certain deed of conveyance from one Bernal, under which the plaintiff deraigned title; 2nd, if included, whether her title was divested by a judgment in a partition suit, to which she was a party; and 3rd, whether the land in controversy was included in a deed executed by her to her father prior to the commencement of the action.
    The Court found that the land in controversy was included in the Bernal deed; and specially found the judgment in the partition suit, and the deed of the plaintiff to her father—copies of each being attached to the findings; but also found that she was not the owner, or seized in fee, of the premises in controversy. The bill of exceptions closes with the statement, that the Court was of the opinion that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, because, under the deeds introduced in evidence, the plaintiff was not the owner of said tract of land.
    
      James A. Waymire, for Appellant (on the appeal).
    
      John B. Harmon, and R. R. Provines, for Respondents.
    The bill of exceptions does not specify the particulars in which the evidence is insufficient to sustain the findings, and there is no appeal from the judgment.
   Department No. 1, by the Court (from the Bench):

The point suggested is, that the Court below must have construed the description of the land contained in certain deeds improperly. As the record comes here, that question cannot be considered.

The appeal is from an order denying a new trial, and there is no specification of any deficiency in the evidence to sustain the findings of the Court below. There is no appeal from the judgment, and construing the description in the deeds as is contended for by counsel for appellant, non constat, but the Court below held that the tract of land sued for was not within the description thus construed. The order is affirmed.  