SMITH v. JOHN HANCOCK ETC. INS. CO., 30 Wn.2d 901 (1948)

193 P.2d 856

HILDA V. SMITH, Respondent, v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellants.[1]

No. 30488.The Supreme Court of Washington. Department One.
June 3, 1948.

[1] APPEAL AND ERROR — RECORD — STATEMENT OF FACTS — TIME FOR FILING. A statement of facts will be stricken under Rule of Supreme Court 9, where it was filed more than ninety days after the date of the entry of final judgment. [2] SAME — REVIEW — FINDINGS — IN ABSENCE OF STATEMENT OF FACTS. In the absence of a statement of facts, the supreme court accepts the findings of fact made by the trial court; and error cannot be predicated upon a conclusion of law which is supported by the findings. [2] See 3 Am. Jur. 461.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Pierce county, Card, J., entered October 6, 1947, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action upon a group insurance policy, tried to the court. Affirmed.

J. Peter P. Healy, for appellants.

Henry Arnold Peterson, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

[1] The statement of facts herein, having been filed more than ninety days after the date of the entry of final judgment, is stricken under Rule of Supreme Court 9. See Thornthwaite v. Greater Seattle Realty Imp. Co., 160 Wn. 651, 295 P. 933 Tremblay v. Nichols, 187 Wn. 109, 59 P.2d 1123; Falk v. Rose, 18 Wn.2d 333, 139 P.2d 634.

The only assignments of error made by appellant which in any way involve the question of whether the findings of fact of the trial court support the judgment, which is the sole remaining question in this case, are assignments Nos. 3 and 5.

No. 3 is: “The court erred in deciding that deceased had no right to change the beneficiary in the Insurance Certificate.” An examination of the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law does not reveal that the court so decided.

Page 902

[2] Appellant’s assignment of error No. 5 is: “The court erred in conclusion of law No. 2 that respondent is sole owner and entitled to all proceeds of insurance.” As to this assignment it need only be said that, since this court accepts the findings of fact made by the trial court and they support this conclusion of law, the appellant’s contention is without merit.

The judgment is affirmed.