Hertford Livestock & Supply Co. v. Roberson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Hertford Livestock & Supply Co. v. Roberson

96 S.E.2d 734, 245 N.C. 588, 1957 N.C. LEXIS 611

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 27, 1957

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 96 S.E.2d 734 (Hertford Livestock & Supply Co. v. Roberson) 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

Hertford Livestock & Supply Co. v. Roberson, 96 S.E.2d 734, 245 N.C. 588, 1957 N.C. LEXIS 611 (N.C. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PeR Curiam.

Judge Frizzelle found the facts in detail, and specifically found that the movants John B. Roberson and George M. Peel failed to show that they have a meritorious defense to the cause of action alleged against them. He concluded upon the facts found that the movants failed to show that judgment was rendered against them at the January Term 1956 of Perquimans Superior Court through their surprise or excusable neglect, and that they had failed to show that they had a meritorious defense to said action. The findings of fact by the trial judge upon the hearing of a motion to set aside a judgment for excusable neglect, G.S. 1-220, are conclusive on appeal, when supported by competent evidence. Carter v. Anderson, 208 N.C. 529, 181 S.E. 750; Sanders v. Chavis, 243 N.C. 380, 90 S.E. 2d 749. There is competent evidence to support the judge’s findings of fact, and his findings of fact support his conclusions and order.

Affirmed.

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

PeR Curiam.

Judge Frizzelle found the facts in detail, and specifically found that the movants John B. Roberson and George M. Peel failed to show that they have a meritorious defense to the cause of action alleged against them. He concluded upon the facts found that the movants failed to show that judgment was rendered against them at the January Term 1956 of Perquimans Superior Court through their surprise or excusable neglect, and that they had failed to show that they had a meritorious defense to said action. The findings of fact by the trial judge upon the hearing of a motion to set aside a judgment for excusable neglect, G.S. 1-220, are conclusive on appeal, when supported by competent evidence. Carter v. Anderson, 208 N.C. 529, 181 S.E. 750; Sanders v. Chavis, 243 N.C. 380, 90 S.E. 2d 749. There is competent evidence to support the judge’s findings of fact, and his findings of fact support his conclusions and order.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 S.E.2d 734, 245 N.C. 588, 1957 N.C. LEXIS 611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hertford-livestock-supply-co-v-roberson-nc-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack