17.  Eowalsky  v.  Kerrigan,  134
Cal.  590,  66  Pac.  850.  See,  how-
ever, Visher  v.  Smith,  92  Cal.  60,
28  Pac.  94,  where  it  is  said  that
if  the  judge  makes  an  erroneous
ruling  as  to  whether  there  were  cir-
cumstances affording  a  legal  excuse
for  failure  to  present  a  bill  in  time,
this  can  be  corrected  under  a  man-
damus from  the  appeUate  court.
18.  See  infra,  S  299.
19.  Gay  v.  Torrance,  145  Cal.  144,
78  Pac.  540.
569


§  298  Appeal  and  Ebbob.  2  Cal.  Jur.
