Case ID: wash_140/html/0355-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 19854.
    Department One.
    September 8, 1926.]
    R. L. Lawrence, Respondent, v. R. M. Mitchell, doing business under the name of Mutual Sales Agency, Appellant.
      
    
    
       Appeal (145) — Exceptions to Findings — Necessity. In tbe absence of exceptions to findings, the sufficiency of the evidence cannot be reviewed on appeal.
    Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Chelan county, Parr, J., entered June 6, 1925, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action on contract, tried to the court.
    Affirmed.
    
      Shumate & Cheney and Corbin $ Easton, for appellant.
    
      Sumner & Adams, for respondent.
    
      
      Reported in 248 Pac. 882.
    
   Per Curiam.

— The • respondent sued the appellant to recover for losses suffered on a car load of pears which the respondent’s assignor contracted to sell to the appellant for delivery at Minneapolis, Minnesota, and which the appellant refused to receive: There was a trial before the court sitting without a jury. Findings of fact and conclusions of law were made in favor of the respondent, on which a judgment in his favor was entered.

The appellant does not question the sufficiency of the findings to sustain the judgment, but contends that the evidence does not support the findings. This latter question we do not find presented by the record. Due, as the record discloses, to a misunderstanding of counsel representing the appellant, there was neither timely nor sufficient exceptions to the findings. The findings are, therefore, not before us for review, and we have no other alternative than to affirm the judgment. It is so ordered.