58 Wn.2d 923, In the Matter of the Guardianship of the Estate of MAUDE RUPP, an Incompetent Person

Case Date: 03/30/1961
Docket No: 35630.DepartmentTwo

58 Wn.2d 923, In the Matter of the Guardianship of the Estate of MAUDE RUPP, an Incompetent Person

[No. 35630. Department Two.      Supreme Court      March 30, 1961.]

In the Matter of the Guardianship of the Estate of
                MAUDE RUPP, an Incompetent Person.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Lewis County, No. 12241, John E. Murray, J., entered March 14, 1960, appointing a guardian for the estate of an incompetent person. Affirmed.

Atwell, Moore & Walstead, for appellant.

Ray Hayes, Jr., and Hull, Armstrong & VanderStoep, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. -

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the Superior Court for Lewis County appointing a guardian for the estate of Maude Rupp.

The appellant contends (1) that the court erred in denying her motion for a change of venue to Cowlitz County for the reason that she is a resident of Cowlitz County rather than Lewis County as found by the trial court; (2) in finding that she was mentally incompetent, unable to manage her business affairs and to care for and conserve her property.

Our examination of the record discloses substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings. The findings support the judgment entered by the trial court.

The judgment is affirmed.

58 Wn.2d B 923, ETHEL FLECK, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON ATHLETIC CLUB, Respondent

[No. 35114. Department Two.      Supreme Court     July 6, 1961.]

ETHEL FLECK, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON ATHLETIC CLUB, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 498819, Hugh Todd, J., entered February 13, 1959, dismissing an action for want of prosecution. Reversed.

Casey & Pruzan, for appellant.

Carl P. Zapp and Leo A. Anderson, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.-

By stipulation of both parties, through their respective counsel of record, the decision in State ex rel. Witting v. Superior Court, 56 Wn. (2d) 117, 351 P. (2d) 409 (1960), is controlling on this appeal. This requires the reversal of the order of dismissal entered by the trial court. It is so ordered.


* Reported in 360 P. (2d) 570.

Reported in 363 P. (2d) 389.