78 Wn.2d 490, MILMANCO CORPORATION, Respondent, PHILIP B. LUNDSTROM et al., Appellants, v. THOMAS H. COOKE et al., Respondents

[No. 40906. En Banc.      Supreme Court      October 29, 1970.]

MILMANCO CORPORATION, Respondent, PHILIP B. LUNDSTROM
et al., Appellants, v. THOMAS H. COOKE et al., Respondents.*

[1] Appeal and Error - Findings of Fact - Review - In General. A reviewing court will affirm challenged findings of fact and resultant conclusions of law when an examination of the record shows substantial evidence to support them.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 664325, Stanley C. Soderland, J., entered June 28, 1968. Affirmed.

Action for breach of fiduciary duty. Part of the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendants.

Jennings P. Felix, Felix & Kraft, and Luzerne E. Hufford, Jr., for appellants.

John H. Faltys and Uziel & Faltys, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. -

Appellants Lundstrom appeal from a judgment in favor of respondents Cooke. The record indicates that a recitation of the facts which gave rise to the lawsuit will serve no useful purpose.

[1] The assignments of error upon which this appeal is predicated are directed solely to five findings of fact entered by the trial court. Since our examination of the record discloses substantial evidence to support each of the challenged findings of fact and resultant conclusions of law, we affirm. United Pac. Ins. Co. v. Lundstrom, 77 Wn.2d 162, 459 P.2d 930 (1969).

* Reported in 475 P.2d 884.

[1] See 5 Am. Jur. 2d, Appeal and Error 839 et seq.