Harbican v. Chamberlin

Citations

• 82 Wash. 556
• 144 P. 717
• 1914 Wash. LEXIS 1550

Syllabus

<p>Appeal — -Preservation of Grounds — Exceptions to Findings— Necessity. Where the findings in a decree of foreclosure are not commingled with the decree proper and are separately stated and numbered, there can be no review of the evidence on appeal, when not excepted to, where no part of the error relied upon is the rejection of evidence; since Rem. & Bal. Code, § 382, providing that exceptions are not necessary to rulings embodied in a written judgment, also provides that this section shall not apply to findings of fact in a decision of a court or judge tried without a jury, and Id., § 1736, precludes any review of the evidence in the absence of exceptions to the findings.</p> <p>Mortgages — Foreclosure—Assumption of Mortgage — -Findings— Sufficiency. In the absence of any exceptions, findings for a decree of the foreclosure of a mortgage to the effect that subsequent to the mortgage, the premises were, by mesne conveyances, transferred and sold to the defendant C. and wife, who “assumed and agreed to pay said note and mortgage according to its terms,” are sufficient to support a deficiency judgment against C. and wife upon their assumption; since (1) it does not affirmatively appear that there was in fact any gap in the assumptions in the chain of mesne conveyances through which the appellant’s claim, and (2) the deed to defendants in which it is found that they expressly assumed the mortgage, imports a consideration; and since, where findings are merely defective, it will be presumed that they are supported by the evidence.</p>