Case Name: CASSITY v. WILSON
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1915-06-29
Citations: 76 Or. 595
Docket Number: 
Parties: CASSITY v. WILSON.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Moore, Mr. Justice Burnett and Mr. Justice Benson concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 76
Pages: 595–598

Head Matter:
Argued June 22,
affirmed June 29, 1915.
CASSITY v. WILSON.
(149 Pac. 1018.)
Appeal and Error — Presenting Questions in Lower Court — Necessity . of Exceptions.
1. Where the bill of exceptions does not show that any exception was taken to any ruling at the trial or to the findings, the Supreme Court cannot consider the correctness of the ruling or the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding.
[As to requirements of statement of reasons of appeal in equity case, see note in Ann. Cas. 1914D, 522.]
From Multnomah.: William N. G-atens, Judge.
Department 1. Statement by Mr. Justice McBride.
This is an action brought by F. A. Cassity against Ben H. Wilson, Ada S. Wilson and F. B. Stratton, alleging that defendants entered into a conspiracy to mislead and defraud him concerning certain patents and patent rights controlled by them, which they represented had been transferred to the Twin Manufacturing Company, a corporation. The complaint asserts that defendants falsely represented that if the plaintiff would so invest large profits would be made; that, to induce him to take a commission contract, the services of one J. H. Jefferson were secured to act as a partner with plaintiff, the defendants falsely pretending that said Jefferson would put a like sum into the business; that plaintiff, relying upon the representations thus made, did advance $750 and gave his note for $500, and Jefferson, at the instance of defendants and for the purpose of defrauding plaintiff, gave a check on the United States National Bank for $750 and his note for $500, which check was alleged to be worthless and known to be so by defendants at the time it was given. Plaintiff further avers that defendant Wilson, in pursuance of the conspiracy, agreed to go into partnership with him, and that he went north to Vancouver, B. C., and Seattle, at the behest of Wilson, to secure a location; that said Wilson did not carry out his agreement, and plaintiff was compelled to return to Portland with loss of much money and.time. To this defendants Ada S. Wilson and F. D. Stratton file a general denial; and defendant Ben H. Wilson, in a further and separate answer, alleges that the Twin Manufacturing Company is a corporation, that the contract was made with the corporation, that the money was paid to the corporation, and the officers of the corporation signed and put the seal of the corporation thereon. The case was triecl before the court without a jury, and, from findings and judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
For appellants there was a brief over the name of Messrs. Leet & Mahone, with an oral argument by Mr. L. D. Mahone.
For respondent there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. John Ditchburn.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice McBride
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case does not come here in a condition which enables us to consider the questions discussed in appellants' brief. The bill of exceptions does not show that any exception was taken to any ruling made by the court during the trial. It does show that many objections were made and overruled, but no exceptions to the rulings were saved in any instance. The findings of fact made by the court covered every issue made by the pleadings, and are sufficient to support the judgment, and were not excepted to upon the trial. Where a party wishes to raise in this court the question that a finding of the lower court is unsupported by evidence, his bill of exceptions should show that he excepted to the finding made and that he requested a different finding and excepted to the refusal of the court to make it: Tatum v. Massie, 29 Or. 140, 147 (44 Pac. 494), and cases there cited. The alleged bill of exceptions here is not such in fact, as it fails to show that any ruling or finding of the court was excepted to; and, as before remarked, this court can only consider errors legally excepted to in the court below.
The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.
Mr. Chief Justice Moore, Mr. Justice Burnett and Mr. Justice Benson concur.