State Ex Rel. Corbett v. Superior Court

Washington Supreme Court

State Ex Rel. Corbett v. Superior Court

48 P.2d 617, 183 Wash. 373, 1935 Wash. LEXIS 739

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 31, 1935

DocketNo. 25681. Department Two.

StatusPublished

This text of 48 P.2d 617 (State Ex Rel. Corbett v. Superior Court) 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

State Ex Rel. Corbett v. Superior Court, 48 P.2d 617, 183 Wash. 373, 1935 Wash. LEXIS 739 (Wash. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Blake, J.

This case is here on certiorari. Relators were defendants in an action to foreclose a mortgage on certain real estate. They answered, setting up claim of homestead in the mortgaged property. The trial court entered a decree foreclosing the mortgage and denying relators’ claim of homestead. The record here consists of the complaint, relators’ answer and the decree, in which were included certain findings of fact.

The case being of equitable cognizance, no findings of fact were necessary. Every presumption is indulged in support of the decree. When findings *374 are made in such cases, the decree will be upheld, although the findings may be indefinite, uncertain or incomplete, it being presumed that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the decree. Thompson v. Emerson, 55 Wash. 138, 104 Pac. 201; Smith v. Dement Brothers Co., 100 Wash. 139, 170 Pac. 555. Even though findings of fact are inconsistent, if one or more supports the decree, it will be upheld. Howey v. Bingham, 14 Wash. 450, 44 Pac. 886; Silver stone v. Hanley, 55 Wash. 458, 104 Pac. 767.

So, also, in the absence of a statement of facts, pleadings are deemed to be amended to conform to proof. Messick v. National Council, 103 Wash. 143, 173 Pac. 940.

In the light of these rules, it is necessary to refer to only one of the court’s findings:

“And the court further finds from the evidence herein that the defendants, Corbett, are not asserting said homestead exemption in good faith or entitled thereto and that to allow the same would be to permit of trafficking in homesteads and the court concludes that the homestead asserted by the defendants, Cor-bett, should be disallowed and denied and that the plaintiffs should be entitled to the immediate possession of said real property upon sale thereof under the foreclosure hereinafter decreed.”

Under the rules stated, we are concluded by the finding, since it supports the decree denying relators’ claim of homestead. Eor good faith in asserting the right is essential to sustain a declaration of homestead. Skinner v. Hunter, 95 Wash. 607, 164 Pac. 244; Traverso v. Cerini, 146 Wash. 273, 263 Pac. 184.

Decree affirmed.

Tolman, Steinert, Holcomb, and Mitchell, JJ., concur.

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

Blake, J.

This case is here on certiorari. Relators were defendants in an action to foreclose a mortgage on certain real estate. They answered, setting up claim of homestead in the mortgaged property. The trial court entered a decree foreclosing the mortgage and denying relators’ claim of homestead. The record here consists of the complaint, relators’ answer and the decree, in which were included certain findings of fact.

The case being of equitable cognizance, no findings of fact were necessary. Every presumption is indulged in support of the decree. When findings *374 are made in such cases, the decree will be upheld, although the findings may be indefinite, uncertain or incomplete, it being presumed that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the decree. Thompson v. Emerson, 55 Wash. 138, 104 Pac. 201; Smith v. Dement Brothers Co., 100 Wash. 139, 170 Pac. 555. Even though findings of fact are inconsistent, if one or more supports the decree, it will be upheld. Howey v. Bingham, 14 Wash. 450, 44 Pac. 886; Silver stone v. Hanley, 55 Wash. 458, 104 Pac. 767.

So, also, in the absence of a statement of facts, pleadings are deemed to be amended to conform to proof. Messick v. National Council, 103 Wash. 143, 173 Pac. 940.

In the light of these rules, it is necessary to refer to only one of the court’s findings:

“And the court further finds from the evidence herein that the defendants, Corbett, are not asserting said homestead exemption in good faith or entitled thereto and that to allow the same would be to permit of trafficking in homesteads and the court concludes that the homestead asserted by the defendants, Cor-bett, should be disallowed and denied and that the plaintiffs should be entitled to the immediate possession of said real property upon sale thereof under the foreclosure hereinafter decreed.”

Under the rules stated, we are concluded by the finding, since it supports the decree denying relators’ claim of homestead. Eor good faith in asserting the right is essential to sustain a declaration of homestead. Skinner v. Hunter, 95 Wash. 607, 164 Pac. 244; Traverso v. Cerini, 146 Wash. 273, 263 Pac. 184.

Decree affirmed.

Tolman, Steinert, Holcomb, and Mitchell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 P.2d 617, 183 Wash. 373, 1935 Wash. LEXIS 739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-corbett-v-superior-court-wash-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack