In State ex rel. Gillette v. Superior Court of Spokane County, 22 Wash. 496 (61 Pac. 158), the court, in reviewing this proposition, said: "The petitioner bases his claim to the writ on the ground that there is no appeal or other adequate remedy at law. The constitution provides that, except in certain cases specifically mentioned, the appellate jurisdiction of this court shall not extend to cases where the original amount in controversy or the value of the property does not exceed the sum of $200, and we have frequently decided that a party litigant cannot by indirection obtain a review of his cause which he cannot obtain directly by appeal. It was evidently the intention of the constitution makers that the superior court should have exclusive jurisdiction in actions where the original amount in controversy did not exceed $200." This identical question was again decided by this court in State ex rel. McIntyre v. Superior Court of Spokane County, 21 Wash. 108 (57 Pac. 352), where the controversy was an appeal from the justice's court, and where the amount was less than $200; and we held that the constitutional provision giving the supreme court original jurisdiction as to mandamus of state officers must be construed with reference to the construction of the same section prohibiting the jurisdiction of the supreme court in cases of appeal where the amount in controversy was less than $200, and hence the supreme court has no jurisdiction by mandamus to compel the superior court to try an action where the amount involved was less than $200. In many other cases we have held substantially as in those cited. This cause falling within the rule announced, the writ will be denied. Opinion of the Court-ANDERS, J. [24 Wash. [No. 3134. Decided April 16, 1901.] JACOB FURTH, as Assignee of Guarantee Loan and Trust Company, Respondent, v. D. N. BAXTER, Defendant, ANDREW HEMRICH et al., Appellants. APPEAL FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT — CONCLUSIVENESS. In cases tried by the lower court without a jury, where exceptions to the findings and conclusions have been duly taken and the facts have been brought to the supreme court by a certified bill of exceptions or statement of facts, it is the province of the supreme court to examine the facts de novo and determine the case by the record, under Bal. Code, § 6520, and hence, in cases of conflicting testimony, the findings of the trial court are not as conclusive as the verdict of a jury, although there may be substantial testimony supporting them. Appeal from Superior Court, King County.—Hon. WILLIAM HICKMAN MOORE, Judge. Affirmed. Julius F. Hale, for appellant Hemrich. Upton, Arthur & Wheeler, for appellant Sheehan. The opinion of the court was delivered by ANDERS, J.-On February 10, 1894, a promissory note was executed in favor of the Guarantee Loan & Trust Company in the sum of $600, signed by D. N. Baxter and Andrew Hemrich, and indorsed on the back by defendant Sheehan. The note contained a waiver of presentment for payment, protest, and notice of protest for non-payThe note was subsequently, to-wit, on May 25, 1896, assigned by the Guarantee Loan & Trust Company to plaintiff herein. Suit was begun on said note by plaintiff. Defendant Baxter defaulted. Defendant Hemrich filed a cross-complaint, alleging that he had signed the note with Baxter at the solicitation and for the sole benefit of defendant Sheehan, and asked that he be treated as ment. April, 1901.] Opinion of the Court-ANDERS, J. an accommodation maker, and that any decree in favor of plaintiff assignee should require exhaustion of the estate of defendant Sheehan prior to any execution against him (Hemrich). Defendant Sheehan, answering, alleged that he was indorser of said note solely for the purpose of identification, and had no other responsibility; and he denied all of the allegations of the cross-complaint, and asked judgment of dismissal. He alleged further that, treating him as an ordinary indorser, he received no notice of non-payment of the note, such as an indorser would be entitled to, the waiver contained in the face of the note going only to presentment for payment, protest, and notice of protest for non-payment. Upon issues thus joined, trial was had before the court, a jury being expressly waived. The court found, in substance, that Baxter, Hemrich, and Sheehan were makers of the note so far as the plaintiff was concerned. It found further that no part thereof had been paid; that, when it was delivered to defendant Sheehan, defendant Baxter was indebted to Sheehan in a sum greater than $600, and that the note was treated as a payment on said indebtedness, and that it was understood that said note would be discounted by defendant Sheehan. It found further that when the note was signed by Baxter and Hemrich, defendants, it was not the agreement between them and defendant Sheehan that Hemrich should be liable to the payee of the note only as surety for Sheehan. Upon these findings judgment was given against these defendants, and each of them, jointly and severally, for the full sum prayed in the complaint. Hemrich appeals, assigning as error that the court should have found that he signed said note as surety for Sheehan, and that the property of the latter must be exhausted before recourse could be had against him. Sheehan appeals, assigning as error that the court should have 39-24 WASH. Opinion of the Court-ANDERS, J. [24 Wash. found that he was an indorser for identification only, and was not liable as a maker of the note at all, and that he should have received notice of non-payment. There is a very considerable conflict in the testimony. It appears to be conceded by the respective counsel that the findings by the judge, a jury being waived, are equivalent to a verdict by a jury. Where a jury finds a verdict on the facts, this court will only weigh the evidence and testimony so far as to determine if there is any substantial testimony to support the verdict. But this rule is not applicable to the extent admitted by counsel in cases tried by the court without a jury, where exceptions to the findings and conclusions have been duly taken and the facts have been properly brought to this court by a certified bill of exceptions or statement of facts. In such cases this court will examine the facts de novo and determine the case by the record. Bal. Code, § 6520. The evidence on the part of defendant Hemrich tends to show that Hemrich signed the note at the request and for the sole benefit of defendant Sheehan, and that Sheehan indorsed the note as maker, and not solely for identification. The evidence on the part of defendant Sheehan tends to show that the note was made by Baxter and Hemrich as a payment on a debt due from Baxter to Sheehan, and that, at the request of the manager of the bank, the Guarantee Loan & Trust Company, he indorsed said note, and not as surety, but for purposes of identification. Upon the evidence we are not disposed to disturb the findings of the court on the questions of fact, as we are not satisfied that it erred in that regard. Defendant Sheehan contends that he was entitled to notice of non-payment of the note. The finding of the lower court that Sheehan indorsed the note as a maker and principal disposes of this question. There was no need of notice of non-payment as presentment for payment was waived. Various errors in rulings of the court as to introduction of testimony are assigned by defendant Sheehan, but we are not convinced that he was prejudiced thereby, and the judgment is therefore affirmed. REAVIS, C. J., and FULLERTON, J., concur. [No. 3388. Decided April 16, 1901.] C. DEROBERTS, Appellant, v. RICHARD H. STILES et ux., Service of a notice of appeal by mail is sufficient, under Bal. Code, §§ 4890, 4891, 6504, when the person making the service and the person upon whom service is made reside in different places between which there is regular communication by mail. SAME APPEAL BOND- AUTHORITY OF ATTORNEY TO SIGN. An attorney has authority to sign his client's name to an appeal bond. 24 611 29 622 24 611 e32 214 24 611 34 511 An appeal bond upon which the surety is a guaranty company whose name is signed by its attorney in fact is not defective in form because evidence of his authority to so sign was not filed with the bond. SAME JUSTIFICATION BY GUARANTY COMPANY. Where the surety upon an appeal bond is a guaranty company, no justification by the surety is required, under the terms of Bal. Code, § 1534. SAME -SERVICE OF APPEAL BOND OR WRITTEN NOTICE ON RESPONDENT. Service on respondent of the appeal bond or written notice of its filing is not mandatory under Bal. Code, § 6510, which provides that "any respondent may except to the sufficiency of the surety or sureties in an appeal bond, within ten days after the |