Byrd v. Thompson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Byrd v. Thompson

90 S.E.2d 394, 243 N.C. 271, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 573

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 14, 1955

Docket673

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 90 S.E.2d 394 (Byrd v. Thompson) 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

Byrd v. Thompson, 90 S.E.2d 394, 243 N.C. 271, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 573 (N.C. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Bobbitt, J.

Defendants’ brief contains no argument and cites no authority relating to an error of law. It relates solely to their contention that the division made by the commissioners was unequal, adverse to them.

Whether the division was unequal or fair and equitable, was a question of fact determinable by Judge Gwyn. McMillan v. McMillan, 123 N.C. 577, 31 S.E. 729; Fisher v. Toxaway Co., 171 N.C. 547, 88 S.E. 887.

There are no exceptions to the findings of fact. Defendants’ sole exceptive assignment of error is to the signing of the judgment. Thus, the only question presented is whether the facts found support the judgment. Scarboro v. Insurance Co., 242 N.C. 444, 88 S.E. 2d 133. But aside from defendants’ failure to present for decision the only question they now argue, it appears there was evidence before Judge Gwyn amply sufficient to support his findings; and the findings made fully support the judgment.

The respective values of tract #1 ($2,850.00) and tract #2 ($3,000.00) having been established, in order to equalize, the owelty charged against tract #2 should be $75.00 rather than $150.00. This being an obvious •error in calculation, the commissioners’ report and the orders confirming such report should be modified so as to make this correction. It is so ordered.

Modified and affirmed.

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

Bobbitt, J.

Defendants’ brief contains no argument and cites no authority relating to an error of law. It relates solely to their contention that the division made by the commissioners was unequal, adverse to them.

Whether the division was unequal or fair and equitable, was a question of fact determinable by Judge Gwyn. McMillan v. McMillan, 123 N.C. 577, 31 S.E. 729; Fisher v. Toxaway Co., 171 N.C. 547, 88 S.E. 887.

There are no exceptions to the findings of fact. Defendants’ sole exceptive assignment of error is to the signing of the judgment. Thus, the only question presented is whether the facts found support the judgment. Scarboro v. Insurance Co., 242 N.C. 444, 88 S.E. 2d 133. But aside from defendants’ failure to present for decision the only question they now argue, it appears there was evidence before Judge Gwyn amply sufficient to support his findings; and the findings made fully support the judgment.

The respective values of tract #1 ($2,850.00) and tract #2 ($3,000.00) having been established, in order to equalize, the owelty charged against tract #2 should be $75.00 rather than $150.00. This being an obvious •error in calculation, the commissioners’ report and the orders confirming such report should be modified so as to make this correction. It is so ordered.

Modified and affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 S.E.2d 394, 243 N.C. 271, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byrd-v-thompson-nc-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack