## Facts

- Theodore Richert sued C.C. Handly and his wife (marital community) seeking an accounting based on an alleged logging partnership.
- Richert proposed purchasing Oregon timber with his funds while Handly logged it with his services and equipment; the parties would share profits or losses.
- Before purchase, Handly advised Richert the timber estimate was overstated (about 1,000,000 feet rather than 1,700,000).
- Richert nonetheless bought the timber for $24,300, and Handly logged it under an oral working agreement.
- The trial court found the parties agreed to share profits and losses equally, but had no settled agreement that Richert’s capital would be repaid before any distribution or allocation.
- The venture was unprofitable; the timber was sold at a loss, and the parties withdrew proceeds during the venture (approximately $10,000 to Richert and $7,000 to Handly).
- The trial court entered judgment requiring Richert to pay Handly $1,494.51 (plus costs) so each would receive an equal share of the proceeds.

## Issues

1. Whether an appellant’s failure to assign error to findings of fact makes those findings binding on appeal, limiting review to whether they support the conclusions of law and judgment.
2. Whether unchallenged findings that the parties agreed to equal profit-and-loss sharing, with no priority repayment term for capital, support a judgment equalizing distributions between the parties.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed.
- Because Richert assigned no error to the findings of fact, they were treated as established and binding on appeal.
- On that record, the court held the findings supported the conclusions of law and judgment requiring equalization of the parties’ shares and payment by Richert to Handly.

## Legal Principles

- When findings of fact are not challenged on appeal, they are accepted as established, and appellate review is confined to whether those findings support the conclusions of law and judgment.
- In a partnership accounting, where partners agree to share profits and losses equally and there is no settled agreement granting priority repayment of one partner’s capital contributions, a court may allocate proceeds to reflect equal sharing rather than infer a capital-priority right.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed an accounting judgment equalizing the parties’ recovery from a failed timber-logging venture because the appellant did not challenge the findings, and those findings established equal sharing with no agreed priority for repayment of capital.


Richert v. Handly, 50 Wash. 2d 356, 311 P.2d 417 (Wash. 1957)