29 Wn.2d 485, HOMER PARR v. RANDLE LUMBER COMPANY

[No. 29904. En Banc.      Supreme Court      December 19, 1947.]

HOMER PARR et al., Appellants, v. RANDLE LUMBER
                          COMPANY et al., Defendants.

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. RANDLE LUMBER
                COMPANY et al., Defendants, THE UNITED STATES
                          OF AMERICA, Respondent.1

[1] APPEAL AND ERROR - REVIEW - PRESUMPTIONS - JUDGMENT. Where an issue on appeal involves disputed facts, and the appellants did not bring to the supreme court a statement of facts whereby the evidence might be reviewed, it will be presumed that the facts support the judgment.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Lewis county, Murray, J., entered December 19, 1945, upon findings in consolidated cases, establishing lien priorities against an insolvent corporation. Affirmed.

J. O. Davies, for appellants.

Sewell Key, J. Charles Dennis, Guy A. B. Dovell, and Thomas R. Winter, for respondent.

ROBINSON, J. -

Appellants claim that their lien as employees of the Randle Lumber Company, being first perfected, is entitled to priority over the lien of the United States of America for withholding and unemployment compensation taxes. If appellants have a lien, their argument is quite persuasive; but, unfortunately for them, the trial court entered a judgment giving priority to the lien of the United States of America on the theory that the appellants had waived their lien rights.

[1] The appellants have brought no statement of facts to this court, and the issue of waiver obviously involves disputed facts. There being no means available for a review of the evidence, it will be presumed that the facts support the judgment. As was said in In re Flynn's Estate, 181 Wash. 254, 43 P. (2d) 8:

1 Reported in 189 P. (2d) 487.

[1] See 3 Am. Jur. 516.

 486    DUBKE v. KASSA.     [29 Wn. (2d)

"A decree presumably based upon facts not disclosed by the record can not be reversed when the evidence is not brought before the reviewing court."

The judgment is affirmed.

MALLERY, C. J., MILLARD, STEINERT, SIMPSON, JEFFERS, SCHWELLENBACH, and HILL, JJ., concur.