Summary
In Simmons v. Department of Labor Industries, 175 Wn. 290, 27 P.2d 567, the department appealed from a judgment of the superior court reversing a decision of the department.
Summary of this case from Daugherty v. Dept. of Labor IndustriesOpinion
No. 24651. Department One.
December 4, 1933.
APPEAL AND ERROR (263, 317) — RECORD — NECESSITY OF STATEMENT OF FACTS TO REVIEW EVIDENCE. Where questions of fact are involved, the judgment will be affirmed where there is no statement of facts or bill of exceptions, and the rule applies to appeals under the workmen's compensation act the same as in other cases.
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Whatcom county, Gruber, J., entered March 7, 1933, upon findings, reversing a decision of the department of labor and industries closing the claim of an injured workman, after a trial on the merits to the court. Affirmed.
The Attorney General and Browder Brown, Assistant, for appellant.
Lester Whitmore and Thos. R. Waters, for respondent.
This action arose under the workmen's compensation act. An appeal having been taken by the plaintiff from the decision of the joint board of the department of labor and industries, a trial was had before the superior court without a jury. Findings and conclusions were entered by the court, followed by a judgment reversing the order of the joint board. The department has appealed.
[1] Respondent has moved to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment, because no statement of facts, nor bill of exceptions, has been certified or filed. We have repeatedly held that we will not in any case say that the judgment of the trial court is wrong upon questions of fact unless we have before us all the evidence upon which that court passed judgment, and that this fact must affirmatively appear from the record. The presumption is that the court acted upon sufficient evidence. International Development Co. v. Sanger, 75 Wn. 546, 135 P. 28; Agens v. Powell, 79 Wn. 131, 139 P. 873; Taylor v. Andres, 83 Wn. 684, 145 P. 991; Deller v. Long, 96 Wn. 372, 165 P. 98; Mauseth v. Slayden, 104 Wn. 512, 177 P. 319; Lamb-Davis Lbr. Co. v. Stowell, 107 Wn. 212, 181 P. 520; Larson v. Seattle, 121 Wn. 75, 208 P. 54; Rieper v. General Cigar Co., 121 Wn. 427, 209 P. 849; Wise v. Nichols, 147 Wn. 375, 266 P. 186; McAllister v. Niels Hansen Mfg. Co., 148 Wn. 642, 269 P. 789; Lee v. Gorman Packing Corp., 154 Wn. 376, 282 P. 205; King v. Manson, 165 Wn. 90, 4 P.2d 885.
Without a statement of facts, properly certified, we are unable to say upon what evidence the court based its findings.
The reason for this rule is as potent in cases arising under the workmen's compensation act as it is in any other case. The rule must therefore be applied in this case, wherein we have but a transcript of the clerk, but no statement of facts certified by the court.
In the absence of a statement of facts, the only question left is whether the findings and conclusions support the judgment. Abbott v. Clebanck, 158 Wn. 368, 290 P. 704; Brainard v. Miser, 165 Wn. 244, 4 P.2d 1097. We have examined the findings and conclusions and find that the judgment is fully supported thereby.
Affirmed.
BEALS, C.J., MAIN, MITCHELL, and MILLARD, JJ., concur.