Title: Bergman v. Johnson
Citation: 405 P.2d 715, 66 Wash. 2d 858
Docket Number: 37450, 37451
State: Washington
Issuer: Washington Supreme Court
Date: September 16, 1965

66 Wn.2d 858 (1965) 405 P.2d 715 ART BERGMAN, Appellant, v. FRED L. JOHNSON et al., Respondents. DONALD L. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. FRED L. JOHNSON et al., Respondents.[*] Nos. 37450, 37451. The Supreme Court of Washington, Department Two. September 16, 1965. DONWORTH, J. This is an appeal from dismissal after trial of two petitions for a receivership and the involuntary dissolution brought by two minority shareholders, Art Bergman and Donald L. Johnson, against a complex of closely held interrelated corporations, and their officers and directors. These two cases were consolidated for trial and were heard as a consolidated case on appeal. Appellants have made 11 assignments of error, which fall into 4 categories. They claim error with respect to (1) the trial court's findings of fact, (2) its exercise of discretion under the involuntary dissolution procedures provided for in RCW 23.01.540, (3) the preliminary dismissal of two of the subsidiary corporate defendants, and (4) the summary judgment against one plaintiff, Donald *859 Johnson, prior to trial on substantially the identical issues which were later tried in connection with the Bergman petition in the consolidated trial. The statement of facts contains 478 pages and refers to 53 exhibits, many of which consist of corporate minute books, accounting records, and letters. We have read the pertinent parts of the exhibits and the complete record, as well as the oral opinion of the trial court and its findings of fact and conclusions of law. We believe that the oral opinion of the trial court explains the problems and their resolution by the trial court very well and very succinctly in view of the ponderous record. It stated: [1] We are of the opinion that the assignments of error made by appellants are clearly without merit. Each finding of fact is sustained by substantial evidence. Even if we might have made different findings were we the trier of fact, we have no power to revise the trial court's findings in view of the rule of Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc., 54 Wn.2d 570, 343 P.2d 183 (1959). We, therefore, accept the court's findings as verities. *863 [2] Furthermore, the granting of a petition for an involuntary corporate dissolution is within the sound discretion of the trial court. As this court stated in Blinn v. Almira Trading Co., 190 Wash. 156, 162, 66 P.2d 1132 (1937): We cannot say that the trial court, under the facts as found by it, abused its discretion in dismissing the petitions. The other two categories of assignments of error are immaterial in view of our affirmance of the trial court on the first two categories of assignments of error. The pretrial dismissal of the defendant subsidiary corporations did not result in the exclusion of any evidence which was pertinent, nor in the elimination of any issues. The summary judgment against portions of the Donald Johnson petition did not eliminate any issues or evidence from the trial because the issues and evidence were identical in connection with both petitions for involuntary dissolution, except for the additional issue presented by Donald Johnson relevant to the stock certificate, which issue was fully tried at the consolidated trial. In view of the foregoing discussion, the judgment of dismissal is hereby affirmed. ROSELLINI, C.J., HILL and WEAVER, JJ., and RYAN, J. Pro Tem., concur. [*] Reported in 405 P.2d 715.