Pederson v. Ullrich

Washington Supreme Court

Pederson v. Ullrich

96 P. 1044, 50 Wash. 211, 1908 Wash. LEXIS 697

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 6, 1908

DocketNo. 6361

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 96 P. 1044 (Pederson v. Ullrich) 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

Pederson v. Ullrich, 96 P. 1044, 50 Wash. 211, 1908 Wash. LEXIS 697 (Wash. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Action by Hans Pederson against Richard H. Ullrich and others to foreclose a laborer’s lien on certain real estate in the city of Seattle. From a judgment and decree entered in favor of the plaintiff, the defendants have appealed.

The respondent has moved this court to strike the statement of facts, for the reason that no exceptions were taken or filed to the findings of fact. No exceptions either to findings made or to those requested and refused appear in the record. In their reply brief the appellants concede that the only mention of any exceptions being taken appears in the certificate of the trial judge to the statement of facts as follows: “That the findings of fact and conclusions of law hereto attached were the ones proposed by defendants and rejected and refused by the court and exception allowed [212]*212thereto.” This, if conceded to be an attempt at exceptions to findings requested, will not secure a review of the evidence, as a general exception to all findings made, or all findings requested and refused, is insufficient for any such purpose. Peters v. Lewis, 33 Wash. 617, 74 Pac. 815; Bringgold v. Bringgold, 40 Wash. 123, 82 Pac. 179; Horrell v. California etc. Ass’n, 40 Wash. 531, 82 Pac. 889. The appellants, citing Schlotfeldt v. Bull, 17 Wash. 6, 48 Pac. 343; Lilly v. Eklund, 37 Wash. 532, 79 Pac. 1107; Smith v. Glenn, 40 Wash. 262, 82 Pac. 605, and Bringgold v. Bringgold, supra, contend that the statement of facts will not be stricken because of failure to except to the findings, but will be retained for the purpose of reviewing error on the part of the trial court in excluding' evidence offered. Conceding this to be the correct rule, it can have no application here, as an examination of appellants’ briefs fails to disclose any assignments based on alleged error of the trial court in excluding evidence. The motion to strike the statement is sustained.

The statement being stricken, the one question before us. for determination is whether the findings made by the trial court sustain- the judgment. Without reviewing such findings in detail, we are compelled to hold that they do.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Action by Hans Pederson against Richard H. Ullrich and others to foreclose a laborer’s lien on certain real estate in the city of Seattle. From a judgment and decree entered in favor of the plaintiff, the defendants have appealed.

The respondent has moved this court to strike the statement of facts, for the reason that no exceptions were taken or filed to the findings of fact. No exceptions either to findings made or to those requested and refused appear in the record. In their reply brief the appellants concede that the only mention of any exceptions being taken appears in the certificate of the trial judge to the statement of facts as follows: “That the findings of fact and conclusions of law hereto attached were the ones proposed by defendants and rejected and refused by the court and exception allowed [212]*212thereto.” This, if conceded to be an attempt at exceptions to findings requested, will not secure a review of the evidence, as a general exception to all findings made, or all findings requested and refused, is insufficient for any such purpose. Peters v. Lewis, 33 Wash. 617, 74 Pac. 815; Bringgold v. Bringgold, 40 Wash. 123, 82 Pac. 179; Horrell v. California etc. Ass’n, 40 Wash. 531, 82 Pac. 889. The appellants, citing Schlotfeldt v. Bull, 17 Wash. 6, 48 Pac. 343; Lilly v. Eklund, 37 Wash. 532, 79 Pac. 1107; Smith v. Glenn, 40 Wash. 262, 82 Pac. 605, and Bringgold v. Bringgold, supra, contend that the statement of facts will not be stricken because of failure to except to the findings, but will be retained for the purpose of reviewing error on the part of the trial court in excluding' evidence offered. Conceding this to be the correct rule, it can have no application here, as an examination of appellants’ briefs fails to disclose any assignments based on alleged error of the trial court in excluding evidence. The motion to strike the statement is sustained.

The statement being stricken, the one question before us. for determination is whether the findings made by the trial court sustain- the judgment. Without reviewing such findings in detail, we are compelled to hold that they do.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 P. 1044, 50 Wash. 211, 1908 Wash. LEXIS 697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pederson-v-ullrich-wash-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack