Case Name: R. L. Lawrence, Respondent, v. R. M. Mitchell, doing business under the name of Mutual Sales Agency, Appellant
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1926-09-08
Citations: 140 Wash. 355
Docket Number: No. 19854
Parties: R. L. Lawrence, Respondent, v. R. M. Mitchell, doing business under the name of Mutual Sales Agency, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 140
Pages: 355–356

Head Matter:
[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.
Shumate & Cheney and Corbin $ Easton, for appellant.
Sumner & Adams, for respondent.
Reported in 248 Pac. 882.

Opinion:
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.