and is not waived by a failure to raise the question in the trial, but may be raised for the first time in the appellate court.14 To hold that the question of the jurisdiction of the trial court could not be raised in the appellate court for the first time would be, in effect, to hold that consent could give jurisdiction, and might result in the affirmance of a judgment which the trial court had no authority to enter.15 Proof of the venue, in a criminal case, is necessary to the jurisdiction of the subject matter, and it has been laid down that where the bill of exceptions contains all the evidence, the objection that there was no proof of the venue may be raised for the first time on appeal or writ of error.16 Authority may be found for the statement that an objection that the court had no jurisdiction of the parties cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.17 Under this view a plaintiff who makes no objection to the jurisdiction of a federal court to which the case is removed on the ground of diverse. citizenship because neither party resides within the district, but proceeds with the trial, will not be heard to raise the objection on appeal.18 Where a suit in equity is brought, if the defendant desires to avail himself of the objection that the plaintiff had an adequate and complete remedy at law, the objection should be raised in the court below, and, as a general rule, cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.19

66. Necessity for Ruling by Trial Court.-In order that a question may be preserved for review upon appeal it is generally necessary that there be an actual ruling upon the objection or motion of the appellant,20 and if a party permits the court to proceed to judgment without action upon his motion he will be held to have waived the right to have the same acted upon.1 Thus, where a demurrer is filed to a pleading, it is generally the duty of the demurrant to call

14. Alabama Industrial School v. Co., 158 Fed. 1, 85 C. C. A. 343, 19 Addler, 144 Ala. 555, 42 So. 116, 113 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1206. A. S. R. 58; State v. Van Beek, 87 Ia. 569, 54 N. W. 525, 43 A. S. R. 397, 19 L.R.A. 622; Ex p. Talley, 4 Okla. Crim. 398, 112 Pac. 36, 31 L.R.A. (N.S.) 805; Hanger v. Com., 107 Va. 872, 60 S. E. 67, 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 683.

15. Hanger v. Com., 107 Va. 872, 60 S. E. 67, 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 683. 16. Ewell v. State, 6 Yerg. (Tenn.) 364, 27 Am. Dec. 480.

17. Reynolds v. Rowley, 3 Rob. (La.) 201, 38 Am. Dec. 233; Corbett . Physicians' Casualty Ass'n of America, 135 Wis. 505, 115 N. W. 365, 16 L.R.A.(N.S.) 177 and note.

18. Shanberg v. Fidelity & Casualty

19. Savannah, F. & W. R. Co. v. Talbot, 123 Ga. 378, 51 S. E. 401, 3 Ann. Cas. 1092; Central Elevator Co. v. People, 174 Ill. 203, 51 N. E. 254, 43 L.R.A. 658; Corey v. Sherman, 96 Ia. 114, 60 N. W. 232, 64 N. W. 828, 32 L.R.A. 490.

20. Lemmon v. Guthrie Center, 113 Ia. 36, 84 N. W. 986, 86 A. S. R. 361; Flam v. Lee, 116 Ia. 289, 90 N. W. 70, 93 A. S. R. 242; Finley v. Quirk, 9 Minn. 194, 86 Am. Dec. 93.

1. Ecker v. Ecker, 22 Okla. 873, 98 Pac. 918, 20 L.R.A. (N.S.) 421; Blackburn v. Morrison, 29 Okla. 519. 118 Pac. 402, Ann. Cas. 1913A 523

up the demurrer for action, and if, instead of so doing, he goes to trial without objection, he cannot for the first time on appeal insist that his demurrer should have been sustained. And if a party filing an exception to a deposition intends to rely upon it, he must bring it before the court below; and have some action upon it there, or it cannot be noticed in the appellate court, but it will be presumed to have been waived by the party who filed it.3

Objections, Exceptions, and Motions for New Trial

67. The Objection.-The purpose of requiring an objection to rulings of the trial court is to call to the attention of the court the specific error complained of, and not only must the grounds of the objection be stated with sufficient certainty, but the appellate court will only consider such grounds of objection as are specified.

2. Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Ridley, 114 Tenn. 727, 86 S. W. 606, 4 Ann. Cas. 925.

Thus

Iowa.-State v. Brady, 100 Ia. 191, 69 N. W. 290, 62 A. S. R. 560, 36 L.R.A. 693; Holman v. Omaha & C.

3. Armstrong v. Mudd, 10 B. Mon. B. R. & Bridge Co., 117 Ia. 268, 90 (Ky.) 144, 50 Am. Dec. 545. N. W. 833, 94 A. S. R. 293, 62 L.R.A. 395.

v.

U.

4. United States.-Johnson S., 163 Fed. 30, 89 C. C. A. 508, 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1194; Lilly v. Hamilton Bank, 178 Fed. 53, 102 C. C. A. 1, 29 L.R.A.(N.S.) 558.

Arkansas.-Frazier v. Poindexter, 78 Ark. 241, 95 S. W. 464, 115 A. S. R. 33, 8 Ann. Cas. 552.

District of Columbia.-District of Columbia v. Duryee, 29 App. Cas. 327, 10 Ann. Cas. 675.

Florida. Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Foxworth, 41 Fla. 1, 25 So. 338, 79 A. S. R. 149; Pittman v. State, 51 Fla. 94, 41 So. 385, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 509.

Georgia.-Ingram v. Little, 14 Ga. 173, 58 Am. Dec. 549; McCray v. State, 134 Ga. 416, 68 S. E. 62, 20 Ann. Cas. 101.

Idaho.-Spongberg v. First Nat. Bank, 18 Idaho 524, 110 Pac. 716, Ann. Cas. 1912A 95, 31 L.R.A. (N.S.) 726.

Illinois.-Gillespie v. Smith, 29 Ill. 473, 81 Am. Dec. 328.

Indiana.-Tucker v. Hyatt, 151 Ind. 332, 51 N. E. 469, 44 L.R.A. 129; Malott v. Central Trust Co., 168 Ind. 428, 79 N. E. 369, 11 Ann. Cas. 879; Bowell v. De Wald, 2 Ind. App. 303, 28 N. E. 430, 50 A. S. R. 240.

Louisiana.-State v. Charles, 124 La. 744, 50 So. 699, 18 Ann. Cas. 934.

Michigan.-People v. Burman, 154 Mich. 150, 117 N. W. 589, 25 L.R.A. (N.S.) 251.

Mississippi.-Rabe V. Fyler, 10 Smedes & M. 440, 48 Am. Dec. 763. Missouri.-Dickey v. Malechi, 6 Mo. 177, 34 Am. Dec. 130; State v. Ruck, 194 Mo. 416. 92 S. W. 706, 5 Ann. Cas. 976 (objection to evidence as immaterial is insufficient); Fuller V. Robinson, 230 Mo. 22, 130 S. W. 343, Ann. Cas. 1912A 938 (objection to evidence as incompetent and irrelevant held insufficient).

Montana.-State v. Lu Sing, 34 Mont. 31, 85 Pac. 521, 9 Ann. Cas. 344; State v. Crean, 43 Mont. 47, 114 Pac. 603. Ann. Cas. 1912C 424.

New Jersey.-Dale v. See, 51 N. J. L. 378, 18 Atl. 306, 14 A. S. R. 688, 5 L.R.A. 583. Oklahoma.-Johnson v. State, 1 Okla. Crim. 321, 97 Pac. 1059, 18 Ann. Cas. 300.

Oregon.-State v. Martin, 47 Ore. 282, 83 Pac. 849, 8 Ann. Cas. 769: State v. Megorden, 49 Ore. 259, 88 Pac. 306, 14 Ann. Cas. 130.

evidence may be admissible for one purpose but inadmissible for another, and, in such a case, the objection to the admission of the evidence should be directed against its use for the inadmissible purpose, a general objection being insufficient. And a general objection to the admission of evidence, overruled in the trial court, will not be ground for reversal in the appellate court, unless there were grounds of objection which could not have been removed had they been specified, or unless the evidence is in its essential nature incompetent. On the other hand, if an objection to evidence is made in the trial court on a designated ground and there sustained, the action of the court can be sustained on appeal by showing that the evidence was inadmissible on another ground. An exception to the admission of evidence without a previous objection has been held a nullity and insufficient to bring before the appellate court the question of the admissibility of the evidence.8 Where an objection has been made to a particular line of evidence, it is not, however, necessary thereafter to object to each question covering the general matter theretofore objected to. A failure to state the ground of an objection to the admission of evidence will not, it seems, be fatal to consideration of the question on appeal, if the only possible ground is

Pennsylvania.-Rearich

บ. Swine- Schaubuch v. Dillemuth, 108 Va. 86, 60 S. E. 745, 15 Ann. Cas. 825.

hart, 11 Pa. St. 233, 51 Am. Dec. 540; Com. v. Eyler, 217 Pa. St. 512, 66 Atl. 746, 10 Ann. Cas. 786, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 639; Benner v. Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia, 229 Pa. St. 75, 78 Atl. 44, 140 A. S. R. 706.

v.

South Carolina.-Youngblood South Carolina & G. R. Co., 60 S. C. 9, 38 S. E. 232, 85 A. S. R. 824. Virginia.-McCrorey v. Thomas, 109 Va. 373, 63 S. E. 1011, 17 Ann. Cas. 373.

And see TRIAL.

6. Wellington v. Pelletier, 173 Fed. 908, 97 C. Č. A. 458, 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 719; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Murphy, 60 Ark. 333, 30 S. W. 419, 46 A. S. R. 202 (failure specifically to object that it was not shown that entries in book offered in evidence were contemporaneous with fact recorded); Western Union Tel. Co. v. Wells, 50 Fla. 474, 39 So. 838, 111 A. S. R. 129, 7 Ann. Cas. 531, 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1072; Tarver v. Torrance, 81 Ga. 261, 5. Gustafson v. Rustemeyer, 70 6 S. E. 177, 12 A. S. R. 311; Turner Conn. 125, 39 Atl. 104, 66 A. S. R. v. Newburgh, 109 N. Y. 301, 16 N. 92, 39 L.R.A. 644; General Hospital E. 344, 4 A. S. R. 453; Robinson v. Soc. v. New Haven Rendering Co., 79 Marino, 3 Wash. 434, 28 Pac. 752, 28 Conn. 581, 65 Atl. 1065, 9 Ann. Cas. 168; Andrews v. Haller Wall Paper Co., 32 App. Cas. (D. C.) 392, 16 Ann. Cas. 192; Cronfeldt v. Arrol, 50 Minn. 327, 52 N. W. 857, 36 A. S. R. 648; Pittsburgh v. Pittsburgh R. Co., 234 Pa. St. 223, 83 Atl. 273, Ann. Cas. 1913C 933; Evans v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 37 Utah 431, 108 Pac. 638, Ann. Cas. 1912C 259;

A. S. R. 50.

7. Le Mesnager v. Hamilton, 101 Cal. 532, 35 Pac. 1054, 40 A. S. R. 81; Jenney Electric Co. v. Branham, 145 Ind. 314, 41 N. E. 448, 33 L.R.A. 395.

8. Edmunds v. Inman, 24 S. D. 457, 124 N. W. 430, Ann. Cas. 1912A 1035.

9. Cromeenes v. San Pedro, & S. L. R. Co., 37 Utah 475, 109 Pac. 10, Ann. Cas. 1912C 307.

obvious.10 In case of instructions given the authorities are not in accord upon the question whether an objection to the giving of the instruction complained of, in addition to the exception thereto, is necessary. In most jurisdictions the view is taken that as the giving. of an instruction is the action of the court solely, though given at the request of counsel, it is sufficient in order to save the question for review to except to the giving of the instruction without making a prior objection thereto.11 On the other hand, it has been held that there must be first an objection to the instruction and then an exception, the latter being of itself insufficient to bring up for review the correctness of the instruction.12

68. Necessity and Purpose of Exception.-An exception taken during the progress of a trial is a protest against the ruling of the court upon a question of law. It is designed as a warning for the protection of the court so that it may reconsider its action, and for the protection of the opposing counsel so that he may consent to a reversal of the ruling. Unless the question of law upon which a ruling is sought is so stated that it is or should be understood, an exception is of no avail, because the exception is to the ruling as made and the ruling is upon the question as stated.13 The further object of the exception is to bring upon the record by a bill of exceptions the ruling objected to, which otherwise would not constitute a part of the record,14 and, as a general rule, when an objection to a ruling of the court on a matter of law during the progress of the trial has been made and overruled, the party complaining must take an exception to the ruling of the court, in order that the question may be reviewed on appeal or writ of error.15 This rule has been applied in numerous instances. For example, it has been applied to rulings

10. Johnson v. U. S., 163 Fed. 30, 89 C. C. A. 508, 18 L.R.A. (N.S.)

1194.

11. Harding v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 232 Mo. 444, 134 S. W. 641, Ann. Cas. 1912B 1221 and note.

12. Yergy v. Helena Light & R. Co., 39 Mont. 213, 102 Pac. 310, 18 Ann. Cas. 1201.

Ann. Cas. 1912B 1231 note.

S. E. 968, 11 L.R.A.(N.S.) 398; Kern v. Bridwell, 119 Ind. 226, 21 N. E. 664, 12 A. S. R. 409; Malott v. Central Trust Co., 168 Ind. 428, 79 N. E. 369, 11 Ann. Cas. 879; People v. Barker, 60 Mich. 277, 27 N. W. 539, 1 A. S. R. 501; State v. Tully, 31 Mont. 365, 78 Pac. 760, 3 Ann. Cas. 824; W. P. Chamberlain Co. v. Tuttle, 75 N. H. 171, 71 Atl. 865, 25 L.R.A.(N.S.) 604; Sullivan v. Dunham, 161 N. Y. 290, 55 N. E. 923, 76 A. S. R. 274, 47 L.R.A. 715; Lewis v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 220 Pa. St. 317, 69 Atl. 821, 13 Ann. Cas. 1142, 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 279; 15. Miller v. Oklahoma, 149 Fed. Carstens v. Leidigh & H. Lumber Co., 330, 70 C. C. A. 268, 9 Ann. Cas. 389; 18 Wash. 450, 51 Pac. 1051, 63 A. S. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Crocker, R. 906, 39 L.R.A. 548; Koch v. State, 135 Ala. 492, 33 So. 45, 59 L.R.A. 126 Wis. 470, 106 N. W. 531, 5 Ann. 398; Moss v. Chappell, 126 Ga. 196, 54 Cas. 389, 3 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1086.

13. People v. Wiechers, 179 N. Y. 459, 72 N. E. 501, 1 Ann. Cas. 475.

14. Smith v. Lawrence, 38 Cal. 24, 99 Am. Dec. 344; Koehler v. Ball, 2 Kan. 160, 83 Am. Dec. 451.

3

of the court on objections to the argument of counsel,16 remarks of the trial court during the trial,17 rulings of the court on objections to the giving of instructions, 18 and to the refusal to give an instruc tion as requested,19 and where a witness is permitted to testify over an objection.20 The same is true in the case of a ruling of the trial court permitting an amendment to the declaration, or the refusal to grant a continuance. Where a party has duly excepted to an erroneous instruction, and such instruction is repeated, it is not necessary for him to renew his exception, and an exception to the final judgment is not necessary. Thus after an exception is taken to a ruling on a demurrer, no exception need be taken to the judgment rendered on the ruling in order to sustain an appeal therefrom.5 And where the plaintiff has objected to the direction of a verdict, and excepted to the ruling granting the defendant's motion, and also excepted to the verdict directed, it is not necessary to except to the judgment rendered for the defendant. When a party stands by his pleading to which a demurrer is sustained no exception to the decision is required; the action of the court upon a demurrer usually is, and in all cases should be, entered of record, and the making of

16. Skaggs v. State, 88 Ark. 62, 113 S. W. 346, 16 Ann. Cas. 622; Mississippi Cent. R. Co. v. Turnage, 95 Miss. 854, 49 So. 840, 24 L.R.A.(N.S.) 253; State v. Jeffries, 210 Mo. 302, 109 S. W. 614, 14 Ann. Cas. 524; State v. Tully, 31 Mont. 365, 78 Pac. 760, 3 Ann. Cas. 824; Hamblin v. State, 81 Neb. 148, 115 N. W. 850, 16 Ann. Cas. 569.

17. Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Abeles, 94 Ark. 254, 126 S. W. 724, 140 A. S. R. 115, 21 Ann. Cas. 1006; Gehlert v. Quinn, 35 Mont. 451, 90 Pac. 168, 119 A. S. R. 864.

18. Keady v. People, 32 Colo. 57, 74 Pac. 892, 66 L.R.A. 353; Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. Wolf, 168 Ind. 690, 80 N. E. 26, 120 A. S. R. 395; Yergy v. Helena Light & R. Co., 39 Mont. 213, 102 Pac. 310, 18 Ann. Cas. 1201; State v. Megorden, 49 Ore. 259, 88 Pac. 306, 14 Ann. Cas. 130; Kunkel v. Utah Lumber Co., 29 Utah 13, 81 Pac. 897, 4 Ann. Cas. 187; State v. Bringgold, 40 Wash. 12, 82 Pac. 132, 5 Ann. Cas. 716.

19. Pittman v. State, 51 Fla. 94, 41 So. 385, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 509; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Meyer, 76 Neb. 549, 107 N. W. 793, 14 Ann. Cas. 634.

20. Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Obeles, 94 Ark. 254, 126 S. W. 724, 140 A. S. R. 115, 21 Ann. Cas. 1006; Anheuser-Busch Brew. Assoc. v. Hutmacher, 127 Ill. 652, 21 N. E. 626, 4 L.R.A. 575; Ebner v. Mackey, 186 Ill. 297, 57 N. E. 834, 78 A. S. R. 280, 51 L.R.A. 298; Wilkinson v. Service, 249 II. 146, 94 N. E. 50, Ann. Cas. 1912A 41; Cleveland C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Hadley, 170 Ind. 204, 82 N. E. 1025, 84 N. E. 13, 16 Ann. Cas. 1, 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) 527.

1. Swartz v. Gottlieb-Bauern, etc. Brewing Co., 109 Md. 393, 71 Atl. 854, 16 Ann. Cas. 1156; Nichols v. Stevens, 123 Mo. 96, 25 S. W. 578, 27 S. W. 613, 45 A. S. R. 514.

2. Coad v. Home Cattle Co., 32 Neb. 761, 4 N. W. 757, 29 A. S. R. 465.

3. Glover v. U. S., 147 Fed. 426, 77 C. C. A. 450, 8 Ann. Cas. 1184. 4. Kohler v. Ball, 2 Kan. 160, 83 Am. Dec. 451.

5. Haefer v. Mullison, 90 Ia. 372, 57 N. W. 893, 48 A. S. R. 451.

6. Felt v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 48 Colo. 249, 110 Pac. 215, 1136, 21 Ann. Cas. 379.