Washington Brick, Lime & Mfg. Co. v. Adler

• Decision Date: 24 May 1895
• Citation: 12 Wash. 24,40 P. 383
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: WASHINGTON BRICK, LIME & MANUF'G CO. v. ADLER ET AL.

40 P. 383

12 Wash. 24

WASHINGTON BRICK, LIME & MANUF'G CO. v. ADLER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 24, 1895

Appeal from superior court, Whitman county; E. H. Sullivan, Judge.

Action by the Washington Brick, Lime & Manufacturing Company against Pullman Lodge No. 29, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, and others, to foreclose a material man's lien. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant Pullman Lodge No. 29 appeals. Dismissed.

Thomas Neill and C. M. Stearns, for appellant.

Jones Voorhees & Stephens, for respondent.

DUNBAR, J.

This was an action commenced by plaintiff to foreclose a material man's lien for materials furnished by it to the contractors of a building alleged to belong to appellant. The respondent moves to dismiss the appeal for the reason, among other things, that appellant failed to make or file its exceptions to the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the court. The findings of the court were as follows "First, that each of the defendants was regularly and duly personally served within Whitman county, Washington, and appeared herein; second, that each and all the allegations contained in plaintiff's complaint are and is true third, that plaintiff paid for preparing, filing, and recording claim of lien twenty-five dollars; fourth, that there is due plaintiff from defendants Adler & Sees the sum of $560.20, and that the same is a lien on the premises described in the claim of lien and complaint, owned by the other defendant." No exception was ever made or filed by appellant to said findings. It was decided by this court in Rice v. Stevens, 9 Wash. 298, 37 P. 440, that "where an action has been tried by a court without a jury, and findings of fact made by the court, the party aggrieved must except to the findings, in order to raise any question thereon upon appeal." It is conceded by the appellant that under the decision in that case the questions could not be reviewed here, had it not been for the fact, as claimed, that an objection was made to the introduction of the lien notice, and that by reason of the court's overruling such objection, the alleged error of the court in admitting said notice of lien in evidence is before this court for review. It plainly appears that, if the findings of the court were correct, the judgment should be sustained, for, as a proposition of law, the findings are sufficient to sustain the judgment. Section 1 of chapter 60 p. 111, St. 1893, defines an exception. Section 2 provides the cases where an exception is not necessary; but...