Case ID: wash_147/html/0056-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 20990.
    Department One.
    March 9, 1928.]
    Sadie H. Madison, Respondent, v. Grose Realty Company et al., Appellants.
      
    
    
       Appeal (145) — Preservation oe Grounds — Exceptions—Necessity. Where no exceptions are taken to findings of fact or conclusions of law, they are conclusive on appeal.
    Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Kinne, J., entered March 31, 1927, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action to recover possession of leased premises, tried to the court.
    Affirmed.
    
      Elledge R. Penland, for appellants.
    
      Clarence R. Anderson, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 264 Pac. 1008.
    
   Per Curiam.

The respondent, the owner of certain premises situate in the city of Seattle, sued the appellant to recover possession. There was a trial before the court without a jury and findings of fact and con-elusions of law were made in favor of the respondent, and judgment entered thereon.

The record fails to disclose any exceptions to either the findings of fact or conclusions of law. The only question raised is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment. There being no exceptions taken to the findings of fact this question is not before us. Lawrence v. Mitchell, 140 Wash. 355, 248 Pac. 882.

The judgment is therefore affirmed..