Case ID: wash_78/html/0201-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Crow, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 11778.
    Department Two.
    February 18, 1914.]
    W. W. Scott, Respondent, v. Union Machinery & Supply Company, Appellant.
      
    
    Appeal — Preservation oe Grounds — Exceptions to Findings— Supeiciency. The evidence cannot be reviewed in the absence of exceptions to the findings; and a general statement that “Defendants exceptions allowed” is not sufficient.
    Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Livingston B. Stedman, Esq., judge pro tempore, entered September 11, 1913, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action on contract, tried to the court.
    Affirmed.
    
      Robert A. Eaton, for appellant.
    
      James Kiefer, for respondent.
    
      
      Reported in 139 Pac. 218.
    
   Crow, C. J.

This action was commenced by W. W. Scott, as assignee of the First National Bank of Seattle, against Union Machinery & Supply Company, a corporation, to recover the amount claimed to be due on an accepted order, which order reads as follows:

Seattle, September 6, 1910.
Union Machinery & Supply Co.,
Seattle, Washington.
Gentlemen:
You are hereby authorized and requested to pay over to the First National Bank of Seattle the proceeds of the sale of the following described personal property left with you by me for sale up to the amount of $724.51, to be paid monthly as the said property may be sold:
164 4-ft. channels, 31b.-41b................................26241b.
40 5-ft. channels, 3 lb.-4 lb................................ 800 lb.
177 6-ft. channels, 31b.-41b................................42481b.
86 6-ft. channels, 31b.-41b................................23461b.
52 8-ft. channels, 31b.-41b.....................■...........16641b.
392 Wheels, 16 lb. each...................................62721b.
395 Separators, 11 lb. each................................43451b.
You will, of course, be allowed credit out of the current sales for the usual charge of 20c per truck for assembling and any necessary purchase of bolts, pins or rollers required to set up the trucks; the final amount to be paid to the bank being $724.51 if the goods shall bring that amount. C. A. Goddard.
The foregoing order accepted. The amounts payable therein to be payable from time to time as per account of sales rendered and payable on the 10th day of each and every month for goods sold in previous month. Union Machinery & Supply Co.,
Sept. 8th, 1910. By C. E. Farnsworth, Pres.

Plaintiff alleged that the order had been assigned to him by the bank; that, after its acceptance, the defendant corporation, from time to time, sold castings therein mentioned to the amount of $600, and that it had paid the bank, plaintiff’s assignor, $89.90. From a judgment in plaintiff’s favor, the defendant has appealed.

The trial court made findings showing the acceptance and assignment of the order, the sales made by appellant after acceptance, and the credits to which appellant was entitled, and entered judgment in respondent’s favor for $295.37 and costs.

Respondent has moved this court to strike the statement of facts and affirm the judgment, for the reasons that no exceptions were taken to the findings of fact, or conclusions of law; that all assignments of error presented, require an examination of the evidence; and that no assignment of error is predicated upon insufficiency of the findings to support the final judgment. No exceptions, or attempted exceptions, appear in the record other than the following statement at the close of the findings and conclusions of law: “Defendant’s exceptions allowed.” This is insufficient to authorize an examination of the evidence. Fender v. McDonald, 54 Wash. 130, 102 Pac. 1026; Yakima Grocery Co. v. Benoit, 56 Wash. 208, 105 Pac. 476; Seattle Automobile Co. v. Stimson, 66 Wash. 548, 120 Pac. 73; Meacham v. Seattle, 69 Wash. 238, 124 Pac. 1125.

The findings of the trial judge must be accepted as made. There is no contention by appellant that they do not support the judgment. That they do sustain it, is manifest. The statement of facts will be stricken, and the judgment will be affirmed.

Mount, Parker, Morris, and Fullerton, JJ., concur.