The nonsuit was proper for want of evidence to sustain plaintiff's case. (Gilman v. Bootz , 63 Cal. 120; Vanderford v. Foster , 65 Cal. 49; Harney v. McLeran , 66 Cal. 34; Whitney v. Purrington , 59 Cal. 36.)
OPINION
THE COURT [21 P. 551] The grounds on which the nonsuit was asked were sufficiently stated. They are equivalent to the statement that the plaintiff had failed to prove a single allegation of his complaint. The plaintiff's attorney, no doubt, understood what was meant by the statement made by the attorney for the defendants, viz., that the plaintiff had not proved a single material allegation of the complaint. We cannot say that the nonsuit was erroneously granted, for the reason that the grounds on which it was asked were not stated with the precision and definiteness that the law required.
Conceding that a resulting trust was established as to the lot in the city and county of San Francisco, the court is of opinion that this trust was extinguished by the conveyance by Hopkins to Bouldin of the land in the county of San Bernardino, and that the statute of frauds does not require a conveyance by Bouldin to Hopkins of his equitable interest in the San Francisco lot.
Judgment affirmed.