Holcomb v. . Holcomb

135 S.E. 287, 192 N.C. 504, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 334
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedNovember 10, 1926
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 135 S.E. 287 (Holcomb v. . Holcomb) 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
Holcomb v. . Holcomb, 135 S.E. 287, 192 N.C. 504, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 334 (N.C. 1926).

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

This is an appeal from a refusal to set 'aside a judgment by default final on the ground of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect,” under C. S., 600. The judge, not being requested to do so, found no facts upon which he based his ruling. Carter v. Rountree, 109 N. C., 29. In the absence of such finding, it is presumed that the judge, upon proper evidence, found facts sufficient to support his judgment. McLeod v. Gooch, 162 N. C., 122. Hence, there is nothing for us to review. Osborn v. Leach, 133 N. C., 428. “We do not consider affidavits for the purpose of finding facts ourselves in motions of this sort.” Gardiner v. May, 172 N. C., 192. It would have been error for the judge not to have found the facts, had he been requested to do so. McLeod v. Gooch, supra. But he is not required to make such finding in the absence of a request by some of the parties. Lumber Co. v. Buhmann, 160 N. C., 385. See Norton v. McLaurin, 125 N. C., 185, for full discussion of the subject.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Barringer v. FORSYTH COUNTY WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY BAPTIST MEDICAL CTR
677 S.E.2d 465 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2009)
Kolendo v. Kolendo
243 S.E.2d 907 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1978)
Commercial Union Assurance Companies v. Atwater Motor Co.
241 S.E.2d 334 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1978)
Haiduven v. Cooper
208 S.E.2d 223 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1974)
Williams v. Bray
159 S.E.2d 556 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1968)
Langley v. Langley
150 S.E.2d 764 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1966)
Greitzer v. Eastham
119 S.E.2d 884 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1961)
Melton v. Hill
110 S.E.2d 875 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1959)
Sprinkle v. Sprinkle
86 S.E.2d 422 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1955)
Morris v. Wilkins
85 S.E.2d 892 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1955)
Moore v. Deal
79 S.E.2d 507 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
State Distributing Corp. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
224 N.C. 370 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1944)
Wood v. . Woodbury Pace, Inc.
8 S.E.2d 240 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
McCune v. Rhodes-Rhyne Manufacturing Co.
8 S.E.2d 219 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Cayton v. . Clark
193 S.E. 404 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Clayton Banking Co. v. Farmers Bank
190 S.E. 472 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Dunn v. . Wilson
187 S.E. 802 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
State v. . Dalton
174 S.E. 422 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
Venn v. . Coleman
174 S.E. 301 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
135 S.E. 287, 192 N.C. 504, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holcomb-v-holcomb-nc-1926.