Woodard v. Kuhn, 30706.

• Decision Date: 10 December 1948
• Docket Number: 30706.
• Citation: 32 Wn.2d 96,200 P.2d 739
• Parties: WOODARD et al. v. KUHN et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

200 P.2d 739

32 Wn.2d 96

WOODARD et al. v. KUHN et al.

No. 30706.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 10, 1948

Department 1

Action by Silas S. Woodard and Jefferson Woodard, against Leonard Kuhn and Jane Doe Kuhn for damages resulting from collision between two logging trucks. From the judgment rendered, the defendants appeal and the plaintiffs cross-appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court, Cowlitz County; J. E. Stone, Judge.

No appearance for appellant.

Joe L Johnson, of Kelso, for cross-appellants and respondents.

HILL Justice.

A collision between two logging trucks, one owned by Silas and Jefferson Woodard and the other by Leonard Kuhn and wife resulted in an action for damages by the Woodards against the Kuhns. The trial court found that the collision was caused by the negligence of Leonard Kuhn; gave the Woodards a judgment, entered on February 13, 1948, for the damages to their truck; but refused to permit them to recover for the loss of its use during the period required to repair it.

The Kuhns gave notice of appeal and filed their bond; the Woodards cross-appealed from the court's refusal to award them damages for the loss of the use of their truck. The Kuhns did not prosecute the appeal, filed no statement of facts, and have made no appearance in this court. The Woodards filed a proposed statement of facts in the superior court on July 8, 1948, 146 days subsequent to the entry of the judgment.

We have repeatedly and recently declared that Rule of Supreme Court 9(1), 18 Wash.2d 9-a, which requires the filing of a statement of facts within ninety days after the entry of the judgment appealed from, is mandatory and jurisdictional, and that a statement of facts filed after the time prescribed will be stricken. Black v. Porter, Wash., 198 P.2d 670, and cases therein cited. The rule makes no distinction between appellants and cross-appellants. The statement of facts will be stricken.

But one question remains: Do the findings of the trial court support the judgment? Remlinger v. Grange Store, 27 Wash.2d 430, 178 P.2d 723, and cases there cited. In the present case, that comprehensive question might in the interests of clarity be phrased: Can it be determined from the findings that an additional element of damages should have been included in the judgment?

The trial court found that Leonard Kuhn's negligence was the proximate cause of the collision and that the...