Case Name: ASTORIA v. ZINDORF
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1920-05-18
Citations: 96 Or. 332
Docket Number: 
Parties: ASTORIA v. ZINDORF.
Judges: Mr. Justice Burnett took no part in the consideration of this case.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 96
Pages: 332–334

Head Matter:
Submitted on briefs April 13,
affirmed May 18, 1920.
ASTORIA v. ZINDORF.
(189 Pac. 884.)
Exceptions, Bill of — Transcript of Evidence must be Certified by Trial Judge.
1. A transeript of tbe evidence cannot be considered as a bill of exceptions, unless certified by tbe trial judge.
Appeal and Error — Only Sufficiency of Findings to Support Judgment Reviewable Without Bill of Exceptions.
2. In tbe absence of bill of exceptions, tbe appellate court ’ can consider only whether tbe findings are sufficient to support tbe judgment.
From Multnomah: Harry H. Belt, Judge.
In Banc.
This is an action at law, wherein the plaintiff seeks to recover for materials furnished to the defendant Zindorf as a contractor in the construction of a reservoir for the City of Astoria, and the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland is joined as a defendant by reason of its having executed a bond, in compliance with the statute, conditioned, among other things, for the protection of those supplying materials for the structure. An answer and a reply were filed, joining issue upon material allegations, and there was a trial to the court without a jury, resulting in a judgment for plaintiff, from which the defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
For appellants there was a brief prepared and submitted over the name of Mr. O. B. Setters.
For respondent there was a brief submitted by Messrs. Wood, Montague & Matthiessen.

Opinion:
BENSON, J.
The assignments of error challenge the accuracy of the findings of fact, and the conclusions deduced therefrom. Unfortunately for the appellants, there is no bill of exceptions in the record. 'There is what purports to be a transcript of the testimony taken upon the trial, but the only certification thereof is that of the official stenographer who reported the same. In the recent case of Thomsen v. Giebisch, ante, p. 118 (186 Pac. 10), this court has held that a transcript of the evidence cannot be considered as a bill of exceptions unless it be certified, by the trial judge; hence the case is before us without any bill of exceptions.
This court has frequently held that in the absence of a bill of exceptions, the appellate court can consider only whether the findings are sufficient to support the judgment: Lewis v. Clark, 66 Or. 461 (134 Pac. 1194); State v. Rider, 78 Or. 318 (145 Pac. 1056, 152 Pac. 497); Humphry v. Portland, 79 Or. 430 (154 Pac. 897). Taking the findings of fact to be true, as we must in the state of the record as we find it, and having given them very careful consideration, we are compelled to say that they fully support the judgment, which is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Burnett took no part in the consideration of this case.