The motion is now before us for decision. In Paulson v. Higgins, 43 Wn.2d 81, 260 P.2d 318, 266 P.2d 800, in which appellants had moved this court for leave to file an amended opening brief to cure the failure to assign error to the trial court's findings of fact, we denied the motion and said: "If there is to be a rule, there must be a point at which failure to comply therewith can no longer be corrected. That point is the filing of respondent's brief."

Furthermore, with respect to the belated certification of the contents of the transcript by the trial judge at the behest of appellant, respondent contends that it is ineffectual because it came without notice and after the filing of respondent's brief. In this latter regard respondent cites Hill v. Tacoma, 40 Wn.2d 718, 246 P.2d 458 (1952); Paulson v. Higgins, 43 Wn.2d 81, 260 P.2d 318, 266 P.2d 800 (1953); and Popovich v. Department of Labor Indus., 66 Wn.2d 908, 406 P.2d 593 (1965). In each of the cited cases this court denied an appealing party the remedy of curing deficiencies in assignments of error or in a certified statement of facts after the respective respondents' briefs had been prepared and filed.

Verbatim means verbatim, word for word. Unless set forth verbatim, the given findings will be treated as verities for the purpose of the case and the refused findings disregarded on review ROA 43; State v. Moses, 70 Wn.2d 282, 422 P.2d 775 (1967); Paulson v. Higgins, 43 Wn.2d 81, 260 P.2d 318, 266 P.2d 800 (1953-54); Hill v. Tacoma, 40 Wn.2d 718, 246 P.2d 458 (1952). Relators' sole claim of error directed to the court's finding of an agreement claims no error other than the general assertion that the plaintiffs and defendants had orally entered into a tentative agreement.

A like effort, in Hill v. Tacoma, 40 Wn.2d 718, 246 P.2d 458, to belatedly comply with that rule in a reply brief, was unsuccessful. In Paulson v. Higgins, 43 Wn.2d 81, 83, 260 P.2d 318 (1953), we stated: This court has held without exception that failure to comply with Rule 43, supra, will make the findings of fact the established facts of the case.

Our discussion of the first category of plaintiff's assignments of error answers the proposed instruction. In Paulson v. Higgins, 43 Wn.2d 81, 83, 260 P.2d 318 (1953), the court said: If there is to be a rule, there must be a point at which failure to comply therewith can no longer be corrected.

We can only repeat that verbatim means "verbatim." The assignments of error directed to the findings of fact which were not set out verbatim will not be considered. Beagle v. Beagle (1961), 57 Wn.2d 753, 757, 359 P.2d 808; San Juan Cy. v. Hage (1960), 57 Wn.2d 905, 357 P.2d 166; Ennis v. Ring (1959), 56 Wn.2d 465, 472, 341 P.2d 885; Steele v. Queen City Broadcasting Co. (1959), 54 Wn.2d 402, 404, 341 P.2d 499; Wilson v. Elwin (1959), 54 Wn.2d 196, 338 P.2d 762; Timm v. Gilliland (1959), 53 Wn.2d 432, 334 P.2d 539; Kaiser Aluminum Chemical Corp. v. Department of Labor Industries (1953), 43 Wn.2d 584, 262 P.2d 536; Paulson v. Higgins (1953), 43 Wn.2d 81, 260 P.2d 318. This case presents an opportunity to again emphasize this portion of Rule on Appeal 43, without working a hardship on an appellant inasmuch as an affirmance was inevitable.

[1, 2] Appellant has assigned no error to the findings of fact; consequently, they become the established facts of the case. Rule on Appeal 43, 34A Wn.2d 47, as amended, effective January 2, 1953; Paulson v. Higgins, 43 Wn.2d 81, 260 P.2d 318. Our inquiry is thus limited to whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of law and the judgment based thereon. Hansen v. Walker, 46 Wn.2d 499, 282 P.2d 829. More specifically the question presented is whether the trial court erred in concluding that appellant's earnings were community property.

This rule has been followed without exception. Paulson v. Higgins, 43 Wn.2d 81, 260 P.2d 318, 266 P.2d 800. The trial court made the following findings of fact:

"3. The court erred in entering a judgment and decree of condemnation in the sum of $86,425.70." Respondents contend that we cannot consider the first assignment of error because the portion of finding of fact No. 10 claimed to be erroneous is not set out verbatim in appellant's brief as required by Rule on Appeal 43, 34A Wn.2d 47, as amended, effective January 2, 1953. [1] In Paulson v. Higgins, 43 Wn.2d 81, 260 P.2d 318, 266 P.2d 800, and numerous cases cited therein, and in cases subsequently decided, we have held that Rule 43 applied to the records then before us, and that, where the portion of the findings which were assigned as error were not set out in appellant's brief, they would be accepted as verities. [2] In the case at bar, however, there is no dispute as to any facts except the ultimate fact consisting of the figure $69,005.

This court has consistently held that failure to comply with these rules will make the findings of fact the established facts of the case. Paulson v. Higgins, 43 Wn.2d 81, 260 P.2d 318, 266 P.2d 800 (1953), and cases cited. Likewise, lack of compliance with these rules where error is predicated on the court's refusal to make a proposed finding, compels us to disregard the claimed error.