Forrest v. Gilchrist

43 P. 1099, 14 Wash. 4, 1896 Wash. LEXIS 292
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 15, 1896
DocketNo. 1798
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 43 P. 1099 (Forrest v. Gilchrist) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Forrest v. Gilchrist, 43 P. 1099, 14 Wash. 4, 1896 Wash. LEXIS 292 (Wash. 1896).

Opinion

Per Curiam

This action was tried to the court below without a jury, and from the judgment entered upon its findings the case has been appealed to this court.

It appears from the record that, although written notice was given to the appellant, by respondents’ attorneys, of the time of filing the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and also of the judgment, no exceptions were taken to said findings or conclusions; neither were other or different findings requested by the appellant. Under such circumstances this court has uniformly held that it will not review the evidence upon which the findings were based. Stoddard v. Se[5]*5attle Natl. Bank, 12 Wash. 658 (40 Pac. 730); Cook v. Tibbals, 12 Wash. 207 (40 Pac. 935); Fremont Milling Co. v. Denny, 12 Wash. 251 (40 Pac. 1062); Montesano v. Blair, 12 Wash. 188 (40 Pac. 731); Rice v. Stevens, 9 Wash. 298 (37 Pac. 440). See, also, Donovan v. Clark, 138 N. Y. 631 (33 N. E. 1066).

No question arises upon the pleadings in this case. We think that the conclusions of law made by the lower court were right, and its judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Moreno
499 P.3d 198 (Washington Supreme Court, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 P. 1099, 14 Wash. 4, 1896 Wash. LEXIS 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forrest-v-gilchrist-wash-1896.