Harris v. . Smith

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Harris v. . Smith

57 S.E. 122, 144 N.C. 439, 1907 N.C. LEXIS 165

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 24, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 57 S.E. 122 (Harris v. . Smith) 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

Harris v. . Smith, 57 S.E. 122, 144 N.C. 439, 1907 N.C. LEXIS 165 (N.C. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Walker, J.,

after stating the case: The only question involved in this case is one of fact, the decision of which we are not permitted to review. As held in Boyle v. Stallings, 140 N. C., 524, it must appear that there was no evidence to support the findings of the referee, as sustained by the Judge, before this Court can reverse his conclusion of fact. The well-settled rule has always been that the findings of a *441 referee are conclusive unless excepted to by one of tbe parties. If, upon exceptions, the Court sustains them, they are still conclusive, unless it is shown ■ that there is no evidence to support them or that they were based upon improper evidence. The rule has been too long established to be now shaken and, indeed, it is in itself correct in principle. Usry v. Suit, 91 N. C., 406; Depriest v. Patterson, 92 N. C., 399 ; Cooper v. Middleton, 94 N. C., 86; Strauss v. Frederick, 98 N. C., 60; Jordan v. Bryan, 103 N. C., 59.

The defendant Stone does not except because the referee or the Court committed any error in respect to the conclusions of law, but only'upon the ground that, in the view he takes of the evidence, there was none to warrant the finding of fact that he had paid $181.50 instead of $613. Upon a careful review of the testimony, we think there was at least some evidence to support the finding, though the appellant’s counsel has stated in his brief very strong and cogent reasons to show that the finding of fact should have been according to his contention The question seems to have turned upon whether the $250 payment on the purchase-money of $613 was made by Brown for Smith or for Stone, the balance of $363 having been paid equally by Stone and Brown, each paying $181.50. W. II. Schaub testified that the $250 was paid by Brown for Smith, the original owner of the land which was sold. This excluded the idea that it was paid by Stone and was, of course, some evidence of the fact to be considered by the referee and the Court. It may have been fully explained afterwards by other evidence, but the credibility of the witnesses was for the referee, who heard their testimony, to pass upon, subject to final review by the Judge and not by us.

TTe find no error in the rulings and judgment of the Court.

No Error.

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

Walker, J.,

after stating the case: The only question involved in this case is one of fact, the decision of which we are not permitted to review. As held in Boyle v. Stallings, 140 N. C., 524, it must appear that there was no evidence to support the findings of the referee, as sustained by the Judge, before this Court can reverse his conclusion of fact. The well-settled rule has always been that the findings of a *441 referee are conclusive unless excepted to by one of tbe parties. If, upon exceptions, the Court sustains them, they are still conclusive, unless it is shown ■ that there is no evidence to support them or that they were based upon improper evidence. The rule has been too long established to be now shaken and, indeed, it is in itself correct in principle. Usry v. Suit, 91 N. C., 406; Depriest v. Patterson, 92 N. C., 399 ; Cooper v. Middleton, 94 N. C., 86; Strauss v. Frederick, 98 N. C., 60; Jordan v. Bryan, 103 N. C., 59.

The defendant Stone does not except because the referee or the Court committed any error in respect to the conclusions of law, but only'upon the ground that, in the view he takes of the evidence, there was none to warrant the finding of fact that he had paid $181.50 instead of $613. Upon a careful review of the testimony, we think there was at least some evidence to support the finding, though the appellant’s counsel has stated in his brief very strong and cogent reasons to show that the finding of fact should have been according to his contention The question seems to have turned upon whether the $250 payment on the purchase-money of $613 was made by Brown for Smith or for Stone, the balance of $363 having been paid equally by Stone and Brown, each paying $181.50. W. II. Schaub testified that the $250 was paid by Brown for Smith, the original owner of the land which was sold. This excluded the idea that it was paid by Stone and was, of course, some evidence of the fact to be considered by the referee and the Court. It may have been fully explained afterwards by other evidence, but the credibility of the witnesses was for the referee, who heard their testimony, to pass upon, subject to final review by the Judge and not by us.

TTe find no error in the rulings and judgment of the Court.

No Error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 S.E. 122, 144 N.C. 439, 1907 N.C. LEXIS 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-smith-nc-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack