Case Name: John C. McMillan, Respondent, v. George E. Stone, Appellant
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1914-04-08
Citations: 79 Wash. 119
Docket Number: No. 11455
Parties: John C. McMillan, Respondent, v. George E. Stone, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 79
Pages: 119–120

Head Matter:
[No. 11455.
Department One.
April 8, 1914.]
John C. McMillan, Respondent, v. George E. Stone, Appellant.
Appeal — Recobd—Review—Bill of Exceptions. In the absence of a statement of facts or bill of exceptions, the only question for consideration on appeal is whether the findings sustain the judgment.
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Spokane county, Blake, J., entered March 28, 1913, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for conversion, tried to the court.
Affirmed.
Robertson & Miller, for appellant.
Frederick W. Dewart and Hastings Stedman, for respondent.
Reported in 139 Pac. 753.

Opinion:
Main, J.
The purpose of this action was to recover damages on account of the alleged conversion of an automobile. The cause was tried to the court without a jury. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.
The facts as found by the trial court are: That, on or about the 28th day of February, 1912, the respondent was the owner of the automobile in question, and that, on or about that date, the appellant, without the consent of the respondent, took the automobile and converted it to his own use. That the automobile, at the time of the conversion, was worth $800, and that the respondent was damaged in that sum. Judgment was entered against the appellant in this amount.
No statement of facts or bill of exceptions has been brought to this court; in the absence of which, the only question which can be considered is whether the findings of fact sustain the judgment. Of this, there can be no doubt. The trial court found that the respondent was the owner of the automobile, that it was wrongfully converted by the appellant, and that its value was the sum for which judgment was entered.
Judgment affirmed.
Crow, C. J., Ellis, Gose, and Chadwick, JJ., concur.