[No. 35879. Department One. Supreme Court December 7, 1961.]
JAMES EDWARD TREMLIN, Respondent, v. ARLINE TREMLIN,
Appellant.«*»
[1] APPEAL AND ERROR - ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR - SPECIFICATION OF ERROR - NECESSITY. Assignments of error which do not clearly point out and specify the alleged errors relied on, as required by Rules on Appeal 42(a) (7) and 43, are merely invitations to the Supreme Court to read the entire record and search it for possible error; and such assignments of error will not be considered by the court.
[2] SAME - REVIEW - FINDINGS - ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR - NECESSITY. Where no error is assigned to a trial court's findings of fact, and such findings support the conclusions of law and the judgment, the judgment must be affirmed.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 546539, Ward W. Roney, J., entered September 19, 1960. Affirmed.
Action for divorce. Defendant wife appeals from a judgment dismissing her cross-complaint for separate maintenance and granting a divorce to the husband.
Parker & Borawick, for appellant.
Dobson, Houser & Dobson, by David C. Dobson, for respondent.
PER CURIAM -
Defendant wife appeals from a decree dismissing her cross-complaint for separate maintenance and granting plaintiff husband a divorce.
* Reported in 367 P. (2d) 150.
[1] See Am. Jur., Appeal and Error §§ 694, 703.
Dec. 1961] TREMLIN v. TREMLIN. 141
Rule on Appeal 42 (a) (7), RCW, Vol. 0, provides:
"Each error relied on shall be clearly pointed out . . ."
Rule on Appeal 43, RCW, Vol. 0, provides:
"No alleged error of the superior court will be considered by this court unless the same be definitely pointed out in the `assignments of error' in appellant's brief. (Italics ours.)
[1] Defendant assigns error as follows:
"1. The court erred in granting respondent an absolute decree of divorce.
"2. The court erred in dismissing appellant's cross complaint."
Defendant's assignments of error are an invitation to this court to read the entire record, search it for possible error, and rule accordingly. We have consistently refused invitations of this nature. The assignments of error do not meet the requirements of the quoted Rules on Appeal.
[2] Further, no error is assigned to the findings of fact. We must accept them ". . . as the established facts in the case . . ." Rule on Appeal 43, RCW, Vol. 0. They support the conclusions of law and the judgment.
The judgment is affirmed.