In re Hennie

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

In re Hennie

207 S.E.2d 367, 22 N.C. App. 690, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2420

Court of Appeals of North Carolina·Decided August 7, 1974·No. No. 7421DC398·Published

Opinion

CARSON, Judge.

No objections or exceptions were entered by the respondent during the hearing. The purported assignments of error are not proper and ought not be considered by this court. Rules 19 and 28, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina. The exception to the signing of the judgment is the only exception properly presented. Moore v. Brokers, Inc., 9 N.C. App. 436, 176 S.E. 2d 355 (1970) ; Highway Comm. v. Rankin, 2 N.C. App. 452, 163 S.E. 2d 302 (1968). It appears from an examination of the record that there was an abundance of facts to support the order of the court.

No error.

Judges Britt and Hedrick concur.

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

CARSON, Judge.

No objections or exceptions were entered by the respondent during the hearing. The purported assignments of error are not proper and ought not be considered by this court. Rules 19 and 28, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina. The exception to the signing of the judgment is the only exception properly presented. Moore v. Brokers, Inc., 9 N.C. App. 436, 176 S.E. 2d 355 (1970) ; Highway Comm. v. Rankin, 2 N.C. App. 452, 163 S.E. 2d 302 (1968). It appears from an examination of the record that there was an abundance of facts to support the order of the court.

No error.

Judges Britt and Hedrick concur.

In re Hennie, 207 S.E.2d 367, 22 N.C. App. 690, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2420 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

207 S.E.2d 367 (In re Hennie) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related