Peters v. Lewis

• Decision Date: 29 December 1903
• Parties: PETERS v. LEWIS et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

74 P. 815

33 Wash. 617

PETERS v. LEWIS et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 29, 1903

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Arthur E. Griffin, Judge.

Action by Henry M. Peters against Swan Lewis and another. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

H. E Foster, for appellant.

Ira Bronson, for respondents.

HADLEY J.

This cause was once before in this court on appeal. Peters v Lewis, 28 Wash. 366, 68 P. 869.

The complaint alleged damages by reason of drainage from the defendants' adjoining premises. Relief by way of injunction was sought against a continuance of the drainage and also recovery for accrued damage. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained by the trial court, and this court directed that it be overruled on the ground that the allegations were broad enough to include drainage of a collected and sewage character. Upon the return of the cause to the superior court, the demurrer was overruled, and the defendants thereupon answered the complaint, denying its material allegations, setting up affirmatively matter in the nature of a counterclaim, damages to the defendants by plaintiff, and asking recovery from plaintiff. Issue was joined upon the answer, and a trial was had. A jury was impaneled to assist the court in passing upon the facts. Each of the parties requested the jury to make certain special findings. Special findings were made and returned, and the court adopted them in making its own findings. These were to the effect that the waters upon defendants' premises had not been collected in such a manner that the flow therefrom was a damage to plaintiff's property. It was also found that the plaintiff had removed the natural support of defendants' land, and, without sufficiently supporting it by artificial means, had caused it to slide or run away, to the damage of defendants in the sum of $100. Judgment was entered that plaintiff shall take nothing, and that the defendants shall recover from plaintiff $100 and costs. Plaintiff has appealed.

Respondents move to strike the statement of facts on the ground that no sufficient exceptions were taken to the findings of facts. The findings, as made by the court, are separately stated and numbered from 1 to 5, inclusive. One general exception was taken to all the findings, as follows: 'The plaintiff hereby excepts to each and all of the conclusions of law and findings of fact made and entered by the court on May 19 1903.' It has been often held by this court that such exceptions are too general to constitute the exceptions required by law. When the court makes findings, and these are separately stated, numbered, and entered, specific exceptions thereto must be taken, in order that the court may know what ones are claimed to be erroneous, and upon what particular points it is desired that the evidence shall be reviewed. Hannegan v. Roth, 12 Wash. 65, 40 P. 636; Cook v. Tibbals, 12 Wash. 207, 40 P. 935; Fremont Milling Co. v. Denny, 12 Wash. 251, 40 P. 1062; Ballard v Keane, 13 Wash. 201, 43 P. 27. Such general exceptions are therefore the equivalent of no exceptions. When no exceptions have been taken to the findings as entered by the court, the evidence will not be reviewed on appeal. Montesano v. Blair, 12 Wash. 188, 40 P. 731; Stoddard v. Seattle National Bank, 12 Wash. 658, 40 P. 730. Some of the findings were at least correct, since they related to the ownership by the parties of the respective adjoining lots. There appears to have been no controversy over these matters. Under a general exception, this court will not review the findings unless it appears that they are all erroneous. Washington Liquor Co. v. Northwest Live Stock Co., 18 Wash. 71, 50 P. 569; Payette v. Willis, 23 Wash. 299, 63 P. 254. There being no sufficient exceptions to the findings, they will not be reviewed here, and the ...