Case Name: F. T. Crowe & Company, Appellant, v. Peter Brandt et al. Respondents
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1908-10-06
Citations: 50 Wash. 499
Docket Number: No. 7430
Parties: F. T. Crowe & Company, Appellant, v. Peter Brandt et al. Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 50
Pages: 499–500

Head Matter:
[No. 7430.
Decided October 6, 1908.]
F. T. Crowe & Company, Appellant, v. Peter Brandt et al. Respondents.
Appeal — Review—Exceptions. One general exception to the refusal of proposed findings of fact and conclusions °of law is insufficient to secure a review of the findings made.
Appeal — Record—Statement op Facts. Where no error is predicated upon the exclusion of evidence, and there are no exceptions to the findings of fact, the statement of facts will he struck out, and the judgment affirmed if the findings sustain the judgment.
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Morris, J., entered February 17, 1908, upon findings in favor of the defendants, after a trial before the court without a jury, in an action to foreclose a mechanics’ lien.
Affirmed.
John E. Ryan, for appellant.
Blaine, Tucker & Hyland, for respondents.
Reported in 97 Pac. 503.

Opinion:
Per. Curiam.
This was an action to foreclose a material-man's lien. The court made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and entered its decree in accordance therewith. The appellant proposed certain findings and conclusions, which were rejected. The respondents have interposed a motion to strike the statement of facts, and to affirm the judgment, for the reason that no proper exceptions were taken to the findings of fact and conclusions of law. No exceptions whatever were taken to the findings as made by the court, and the only exception to the refusal to find as requested is contained in the following entry in the minutes of the clerk: "Plaintiff's proposed findings and conclusions are presented and refused, exception allowed." Under the uniform rulings of this court, a general exception of this kind is of no avail. Peters v. Lewis, 33 Wash. 617, 74 Pac. 815; Horrell v. California etc. Ass'n., 40 Wash. 531, 82 Pac. 889, and cases cited. Inasmuch as no error is predicated upon the exclusion of testimony, the motion to strike the statement of facts must be granted.
The findings of the court sustain its judgment, and in the absence of a statement of facts or bill of exceptions, there is no question before us for review. The judgment is therefore affirmed.