Glendale Manufacturing Co. v. Bonano

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Glendale Manufacturing Co. v. Bonano

89 S.E.2d 116, 242 N.C. 587, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 617, 37 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2001

DecidedSeptember 21, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 89 S.E.2d 116 (Glendale Manufacturing Co. v. Bonano) 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

Glendale Manufacturing Co. v. Bonano, 89 S.E.2d 116, 242 N.C. 587, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 617, 37 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2001 (N.C. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

DeviN, J.

From an examination of the record and the evidence offered it is apparent that the findings of Judge Nettles, in so far as they refer to the appellants, were supported by the evidence, and that the judgment holding them to have willfully violated the provisions of the restraining order must be upheld. See Royal Cotton Mill v. Textile Workers Union, 234 N.C. 545, 67 S.E. 2d 755; Erwin Mills v. Textile Workers, 235 N.C. 107, 68 S.E. 2d 813; Safie Mfg. Co. v. Arnold, 228 N.C. 375, 45 S.E. 2d 577.

Appellants’ exception on the ground that the court did not specifically denominate his conclusions of law as such, cannot be sustained. While the judgment might have been stated more orderly, it sufficiently appears that the facts found were fully stated and that the conclusions of law were based thereon. The judgment sufficiently adjudicated the guilt of the appellants for willful disobedience of an order lawfully issued by the Superior Court having jurisdiction. G.S. 5-1 (4). Dailey v. Ins. Co., 208 N.C. 817, 182 S.E. 332.

Judgment affirmed.

Winbosne and Higgins, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

DeviN, J.

From an examination of the record and the evidence offered it is apparent that the findings of Judge Nettles, in so far as they refer to the appellants, were supported by the evidence, and that the judgment holding them to have willfully violated the provisions of the restraining order must be upheld. See Royal Cotton Mill v. Textile Workers Union, 234 N.C. 545, 67 S.E. 2d 755; Erwin Mills v. Textile Workers, 235 N.C. 107, 68 S.E. 2d 813; Safie Mfg. Co. v. Arnold, 228 N.C. 375, 45 S.E. 2d 577.

Appellants’ exception on the ground that the court did not specifically denominate his conclusions of law as such, cannot be sustained. While the judgment might have been stated more orderly, it sufficiently appears that the facts found were fully stated and that the conclusions of law were based thereon. The judgment sufficiently adjudicated the guilt of the appellants for willful disobedience of an order lawfully issued by the Superior Court having jurisdiction. G.S. 5-1 (4). Dailey v. Ins. Co., 208 N.C. 817, 182 S.E. 332.

Judgment affirmed.

Winbosne and Higgins, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.E.2d 116, 242 N.C. 587, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 617, 37 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glendale-manufacturing-co-v-bonano-nc-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack