Pederson v. Pederson

Decision Date29 October 1952
Docket NumberNo. 32007,32007
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Wilmot W. Garvin, Spokane, for appellant.

Thos. A. E. Lally, Thomas P. Graham, Spokane, for respondent.


The appellant husband brought this action for divorce. The wife cross-complained for separate maintenance. From a judgment dismissing the husband's complaint with prejudice and awarding the wife separate maintenance, the husband appeals.

After a rather extended trial, the court entered seventeen separate findings of fact and three conclusions of law, all contained in eight typewritten pages.

Appellant makes three assignments of error. Appellant's first assignment of error reads:

'The trial court erred in entering its findings of fact and conclusions of law.'

Respondent urges that this assignment is insufficient, under Rule on Appeal 43, 34A Wash.2d 47, to challenge the findings of fact of the trial court, and that they therefore become the 'established facts in the case.' With this we agree. Appellant's first assignment of error is the same we held insufficient in Fowles v. Sweeney, Wash., 248 P.2d 400, and cases cited.

The second assignment is directed to the court's refusal to enter judgment for plaintiff. The third assignment is that the court erred in entering judgment for defendant. The conclusions of law, which are supported by the findings of fact, sustain the decree from which this appeal has been prosecuted.

The decree and judgment entered September 22, 1951, is affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Burr v. Lane
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • January 14, 1974 findings or conclusions, or both. Standing alone, the assignment would be insufficient under the rationale of Pederson v. Pederson, 41 Wash.2d 368, 249 P.2d 385 (1952). See Koster v. Wingard, 50 Wash.2d 855, 314 P.2d 928 (1957). However, we are able to pass on the contentions raised base......
  • In the Matter of Patel v. Barroso, No. 57949-5-I (Wash. App. 3/31/2008)
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • March 31, 2008 our rules and results in the trial court's findings being treated by us as the established facts of the case. Pederson v. Pederson, 41 Wn.2d 368, 249 P.2d 385 (1952); Olivo v. Rasmussen, 48 Wn. App. 318, 319 n.1, 738 P.2d 333 (1987) (citing RAP 10.3(g)). When findings of facts are veriti......
  • Paulson v. Higgins
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • August 11, 1953
    ...v. Sweeney, supra; Wygal v. Kilwein, 41 Wash.2d 281, 248 P.2d 893; Simpson v. Hutchings, 41 Wash.2d 287, 248 P.2d 572; Pederson v. Pederson, 41 Wash.2d 368, 249 P.2d 385; Cugini v. McPhail, 41 Wash.2d 804, 252 P.2d 290; Mid-County Publishers, Inc. v. LeMay, 41 Wash.2d 852, 252 P.2d 268; and......
  • Corbett v. Ticktin, 32330
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • September 11, 1953
    ...XXII, XXV and XXVI. Consequently, these five findings must be considered as stating the established facts of the case. Pederson v. Pederson, 41 Wash.2d 368, 249 P.2d 385. Assignments of error Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, relate to findings IX, X, XI, XII and XIV. While these findings are referre......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT