Beaver v. Crawford Paint Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Beaver v. Crawford Paint Co.

82 S.E.2d 113, 240 N.C. 328, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 432

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 19, 1954

Docket672

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 82 S.E.2d 113 (Beaver v. Crawford Paint Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beaver v. Crawford Paint Co., 82 S.E.2d 113, 240 N.C. 328, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 432 (N.C. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

DeNNY, J.

The only exception entered in the Superior Court was to the signing of the judgment. However, the appellant assigns as error the ruling of the court below in affirming the award of the Commission, “for that the findings of fact and conclusions of law by the full Commission are not supported by the competent evidence offered.” They likewise assign as error the ruling of the court below in affirming the award of the Commission, “for that the competent evidence offered is insufficient to establish that the injury alleged Avas by accident within the meaning of the North Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act.”

An exception to the signing of a judgment will not support an assignment of error, purporting to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of fact. Such exception presents one question and one question only, and that is whether the facts found are sufficient to support the judgment. Donnell v. Cox, ante, 259; Glace v. Throwing Co., 239 N.C. 668, 80 S.E. 2d 759; Wyatt v. Sharp, 239 N.C. 655, 80 S.E. 2d 762; Worsley v. Rendering Co., 239 N.C. 547, 80 S.E. 2d 467; Fox v. Mills, Inc., 225 N.C. 580, 35 S.E. 2d 869; Rader v. Coach Co., 225 N.C. 537, 35 S.E. 2d 609.

*330 Moreover, it is the general rule that an assignment of error not based on an exception duly and timely taken, will not be considered on appeal. S. v. Taylor, ante, 117, 80 S.E. 2d 917, and cited eases.

In our opinion, the evidence disclosed on the present record does not support some of the findings of fact. Even so, where there is no exception taken to such findings, they are presumed to be supported by the evidence and are binding on appeal. Wyatt v. Sharp, supra; Greene v. Board of Education, 237 N.C. 336, 75 S.E. 2d 129; Greene v. Spivey, 236 N.C. 435, 73 S.E. 2d 488; Wilson v. Robinson, 224 N.C. 851, 32 S.E. 2d 601; Wood v. Bank, 199 N.C. 371, 154 S.E. 623; Sturtevant v. Cotton Mills, 171 N.C. 119, 87 S.E. 992.

It would seem that the facts as found are sufficient to support the judgment. Edwards v. Publishing Co., 227 N.C. 184, 41 S.E. 2d 592; Smith v. Creamery Co., 217 N.C. 468, 8 S.E. 2d 231. Consequently, this decision is made to rest upon a question of appellate procedure. Therefore, it becomes a precedent in that respect only and not upon the merits of plaintiff’s claim.

The judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DeNNY, J.

The only exception entered in the Superior Court was to the signing of the judgment. However, the appellant assigns as error the ruling of the court below in affirming the award of the Commission, “for that the findings of fact and conclusions of law by the full Commission are not supported by the competent evidence offered.” They likewise assign as error the ruling of the court below in affirming the award of the Commission, “for that the competent evidence offered is insufficient to establish that the injury alleged Avas by accident within the meaning of the North Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act.”

An exception to the signing of a judgment will not support an assignment of error, purporting to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of fact. Such exception presents one question and one question only, and that is whether the facts found are sufficient to support the judgment. Donnell v. Cox, ante, 259; Glace v. Throwing Co., 239 N.C. 668, 80 S.E. 2d 759; Wyatt v. Sharp, 239 N.C. 655, 80 S.E. 2d 762; Worsley v. Rendering Co., 239 N.C. 547, 80 S.E. 2d 467; Fox v. Mills, Inc., 225 N.C. 580, 35 S.E. 2d 869; Rader v. Coach Co., 225 N.C. 537, 35 S.E. 2d 609.

*330 Moreover, it is the general rule that an assignment of error not based on an exception duly and timely taken, will not be considered on appeal. S. v. Taylor, ante, 117, 80 S.E. 2d 917, and cited eases.

In our opinion, the evidence disclosed on the present record does not support some of the findings of fact. Even so, where there is no exception taken to such findings, they are presumed to be supported by the evidence and are binding on appeal. Wyatt v. Sharp, supra; Greene v. Board of Education, 237 N.C. 336, 75 S.E. 2d 129; Greene v. Spivey, 236 N.C. 435, 73 S.E. 2d 488; Wilson v. Robinson, 224 N.C. 851, 32 S.E. 2d 601; Wood v. Bank, 199 N.C. 371, 154 S.E. 623; Sturtevant v. Cotton Mills, 171 N.C. 119, 87 S.E. 992.

It would seem that the facts as found are sufficient to support the judgment. Edwards v. Publishing Co., 227 N.C. 184, 41 S.E. 2d 592; Smith v. Creamery Co., 217 N.C. 468, 8 S.E. 2d 231. Consequently, this decision is made to rest upon a question of appellate procedure. Therefore, it becomes a precedent in that respect only and not upon the merits of plaintiff’s claim.

The judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 S.E.2d 113, 240 N.C. 328, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beaver-v-crawford-paint-co-nc-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack