KNIGHT v. BISHOP, 51 Wn.2d 353 (1957)

318 P.2d 323

RAYMOND E. KNIGHT, Respondent, v. ED BISHOP et al., Appellants.[1]

No. 34341.The Supreme Court of Washington. Department One.
November 29, 1957.

[1] APPEAL AND ERROR — ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS — ERRORS NOT ASSIGNED IN BRIEF — FINDINGS. Findings of fact become the established facts of the case where the appellants do not assign error to them as required by Rule on Appeal 43. [2] SAME — REVIEW — WHERE FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE. Where no error is assigned to the findings of fact, the question on appeal is whether the findings support the judgment. [3] GARNISHMENT — WRONGFUL GARNISHMENT — DAMAGES — ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS. In an action for damages for wrongful garnishment, the findings of fact support the judgment awarding the plaintiff attorneys’ fees and costs expended in quashing the writ, where the court found that the judgment which was the basis for writ of garnishment was void; since where a writ of garnishment is regular on its face, such items are proper elements of damage. [3] See 25 A.L.R. 579, 71 A.L.R. 1458; 5 Am. Jur. 212.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, No. 489505, Hodson, J., entered May 3, 1957, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for damages arising out of wrongful garnishment, tried to the court. Affirmed.

Bennett Hoffman, for appellants.

Rummens, Griffin, Short Cressman and R.M. Oswald, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This action for damages arises out of a wrongful garnishment. The court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appeal.

[1] Appellants do not assign error to the findings of fact. They therefore become the established facts of the case. Rule on Appeal 43, 34A Wn.2d 47, as amended, effective January 2, 1953. [2] The question is, do the findings support the judgment?In re Youngkin’s Estate, 48 Wn.2d 432, 294 P.2d 426
(1956); Union Electric Plumbing Supply v.

Page 354

United Ass’n of Journeymen Apprentices of the Plumbing Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States Canada, Local Union 32, 45 Wn.2d 17, 272 P.2d 144 (1954).

[3] The court found, in findings Nos. 8, 9, and 10, that the writ of garnishment which was served upon the garnishee defendant was wrongfully issued, for the reason that the judgment which was the basis for the writ of garnishment was void. The court entered judgment awarding damages for the amount it determined to be reasonable to reimburse the respondent for attorneys’ fees and costs expended in quashing the writ. Where, as here, the writ of garnishment is regular on its face, such items are proper elements of damage. Maib v. Maryland Cas. Co., 17 Wn.2d 47, 135 P.2d 71 (1943); Olsen v. National Grocery Co., 15 Wn.2d 164, 130 P.2d 78 (1942). The findings support the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.