County of Currituck v. Upton
This text of 197 S.E.2d 883 (County of Currituck v. Upton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The sole assignment of error is to the signing and entry of judgment. This presents the- face of the record proper for review which includes whether the facts found or admitted support the judgment. It does not present for review the findings of fact or the sufficiency of the evidence to support them. Fishing Pier v. Town of Carolina Beach, 274 N.C. 362, 163 S.E. 2d 363; Prince v. Prince, 7 N.C. App. 638, 173 S.E. 2d 567; 1 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Appeal and Error, § 26.
It appears of record that the facts found show the zoning ordinance applicable to Currituck County, effective since 7 October 1971, established an RA-20 District in which the property of defendants was located. The use of a free standing mobile home within this RA-20 District was prohibited under the terms of the zoning ordinance. Defendants had placed their mobile home on their property within this district in violation of the ordinance and refused to remove it.
The findings of fact support the judgment entered.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
197 S.E.2d 883, 19 N.C. App. 45, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/county-of-currituck-v-upton-ncctapp-1973.