Hannegan v. Roth

• Decision Date: 03 June 1895
• Citation: 12 Wash. 65,40 P. 636
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: HANNEGAN ET AL. v. ROTH ET AL.

40 P. 636

12 Wash. 65

HANNEGAN ET AL. v. ROTH ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 3, 1895

Appeal from superior court, Whatcom county; John R. Winn, Judge.

Action by William J. Hannegan and others against Charles I. Roth and others to establish plaintiffs' ownership of certain property. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Reversed.

Black & Leaming and Fairchild & Rawson, for appellants.

J. J Weisenburger and J. R. Crites, for respondents.

ANDERS J.

This action was brought to obtain a decree declaring the respondents to be the owners in fee simple, as tenants in common, of the S.E. 1/4 of the S.E. 1/4 of section 28 township 38, of range 3 E., in Whatcom county; and that the defendants have no right, title, or interest in or to the same. The plaintiffs allege and claim title under mesne conveyances, and by operation of law, from one Emma F. Doyle the grantee from the United States. The defendants deny plaintiffs' title, and set up adverse possession, and also title in themselves, based upon a tax deed executed by the treasurer of the county to S. Baxter and W. P. Jones. Upon the trial the court found as facts and conclusions of law that the plaintiffs had established their alleged title by the evidence, and were entitled to a decree as prayed, and a decree was accordingly entered in favor of the plaintiffs wherein and whereby it is adjudged and decreed that the plaintiffs are the owners in fee simple of the whole of the above-described premises, and that they and each of them are entitled to the possession of the whole thereof; that the claim and title asserted by defendants, and each of them, are void, and said defendants nor either of them have any right, title, or interest in or to said land, or any part thereof. The tax deed and all mesne conveyances from the county treasurer to the defendants were adjudged void and canceled, and a judgment was entered against defendants for costs. The defendants bring the case here for review.

Respondents move this court to strike the statement of facts from the record, on the grounds and for the reasons that appellants have not made or taken any proper or legal exceptions to any order, rule, or judgment of the lower court, and have not made or taken any exception to any finding of fact or conclusion of law, in the manner provided by law, nor within the time required by statute. It has been the practice of this court to strike the statement of facts from the record only in cases where the same is not properly certified, or where it has been settled and certified without notice to all parties who are entitled to notice, under the provisions of the statute. As it is not shown or claimed that the statement in this case is not properly certified, or that the necessary notices were not given prior to its certification, it follows that the grounds stated are not sufficient to authorize us to strike out the statement of facts. But it does not follow that the matters stated in the motion should be entirely disregarded. All that was necessary for respondents to do in this instance was to call the attention of the court, in their brief, to the facts alleged in their motion; but, as we regard the substance of the procedure as more important than its form, we have treated the motion as, in effect, an objection to the consideration of the facts embodied in the statement, upon the grounds therein indicated. Considered as objections merely, the points made in the motion are well taken.

To the findings of fact and conclusions of law filed by the trial court, appellants interposed general objections, without specifying any particular part or parts thereof which they claimed were not justified by the evidence. As some of the findings are manifestly correct, a general objection to the whole thereof is clearly insufficient, and this court is precluded from reviewing any questions of fact upon which such findings were based. Sess. Laws 1893, pp. 112, 113, §§ 2, 3, 7; Id. p. 130, § 21; Rice v. Stevens, 9 Wash. 298, 37 P. 440. And, this being so, the only question to be determined is whether the conclusions of law and the judgment appealed from are warranted by the facts found by the court.

It is stated, in substance,...