Harney v. Mayor
Opinion
It does not appear on this record that the purported case on appeal was served on the appellees, or that it was settled by agreement or otherwise.
“Exceptions which point out alleged errors occurring during the progress of a trial in which oral testimony is offered can be presented only through a ‘case on appeal’ or ‘case agreed.’ Cressler v. Asheville, supra (138 N. C., 482, 51 S. E., 53).” Russos v. Bailey, 228 N. C., 783, 47 S. E. (2d), 22.
Hence, the exception to the judgment presents the only question for consideration on the appeal. The judgment is supported by the findings of fact, and must, therefore, be upheld. Wilson v. Robinson, 224 N. C., 851, 32 S. E. (2d), 601; Rader v. Coach Co., 225 N. C., 537, 35 S. E. (2d), 609; Fox v. Mills, Inc., 225 N. C., 580, 35 S. E. (2d), 869; Hughes v. Oliver, 228 N. C., 680, 47 S. E. (2d), 6; Roach v. Pritchett, 228 N. C., 747, 47 S. E. (2d), 20; Russos v. Bailey, supra; Western N. C. Conference v. Tally, ante, 1.
The judgment below is
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
229 N.C. 71 (Harney v. Mayor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.