In Re Sams'estate

Supreme Court of North Carolina

In Re Sams'estate

72 S.E.2d 421, 236 N.C. 228, 1952 N.C. LEXIS 514

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 24, 1952

Docket114

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 72 S.E.2d 421 (In Re Sams'estate) 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

In Re Sams'estate, 72 S.E.2d 421, 236 N.C. 228, 1952 N.C. LEXIS 514 (N.C. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

JOHNSON, J.

The exceptive assignment to the findings of fact is broadside. Weaver v. Morgan, 232 N.C. 642, 61 S.E. 2d 916; Thompson v. Thompson, 235 N.C. 416, 70 S.E. 2d 495. It is insufficient to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings or any one of them. Town of Burnsville v. Boone, 231 N.C. 577, 58 S.E. 2d 351; Wilson v. Robinson, 224 N.C. 851, 32 S.E. 2d 601; McIntosh, N. C. P. & P., Sec. 517. In this state of the record, the presumption is there was sufficient evidence to support the findings. Vestal v. Vending Machine Exchange, 219 N.C. 468, 14 S.E. 2d 427.

The general exception to the order of the Clerk carried up for review before the Judge of the Superior Court only the question whether the facts found by the Clerk support the order. And in turn the general exception to the judgment signed by the Judge brings here for review the single question whether the facts found support the judgment. Wilson v. Robinson, supra; Thompson v. Thompson, supra. It is manifest that both the order of the Clerk and the judgment of the Judge are supported by the facts found. G.S. 28-32; G.S. 28-8 (2) ; 21 Am. Jur., Executors and Administrators, See. 158; In re Battle, 158 N.C. 388, 74 S.E. 23.

*230 It is noted that the appeal from the Clerk was heard de novo, by the Presiding Judge, rather than in his appellate capacity by review of the record as approved by numerous decisions of this Court: In re Estate of Johnson, 232 N.C. 59, 64, 59 S.E. 2d 223; In re Will of Hine, 228 N.C. 405, 411, 45 S.E. 2d 526; In re Estate of Styers, 202 N.C. 715, 164 S.E. 123; In re Estate of Wright, 200 N.C. 620, 158 S.E. 192; In re Will of Gulley, 186 N.C. 78, 118 S.E. 839; Edwards v. Cobb, 95 N.C. 4. See also: McIntosh, N. C. P. & P., Sections 65, 72, 696 and 701; Rowland v. Thompson, 64 N.C. 714; In re Estate of Edwards, 234 N.C. 202, 66 S.E. 2d 675; Mills v. McDaniel, 161 N.C. 112, 76 S.E. 551. However, there was no objection or exception to the de novo hearing in the Superior Court, and upon the record as presented no prejudicial error has been made to appear. Therefore the judgment below affirming and approving the former order of the Clerk is

Affirmed.

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

JOHNSON, J.

The exceptive assignment to the findings of fact is broadside. Weaver v. Morgan, 232 N.C. 642, 61 S.E. 2d 916; Thompson v. Thompson, 235 N.C. 416, 70 S.E. 2d 495. It is insufficient to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings or any one of them. Town of Burnsville v. Boone, 231 N.C. 577, 58 S.E. 2d 351; Wilson v. Robinson, 224 N.C. 851, 32 S.E. 2d 601; McIntosh, N. C. P. & P., Sec. 517. In this state of the record, the presumption is there was sufficient evidence to support the findings. Vestal v. Vending Machine Exchange, 219 N.C. 468, 14 S.E. 2d 427.

The general exception to the order of the Clerk carried up for review before the Judge of the Superior Court only the question whether the facts found by the Clerk support the order. And in turn the general exception to the judgment signed by the Judge brings here for review the single question whether the facts found support the judgment. Wilson v. Robinson, supra; Thompson v. Thompson, supra. It is manifest that both the order of the Clerk and the judgment of the Judge are supported by the facts found. G.S. 28-32; G.S. 28-8 (2) ; 21 Am. Jur., Executors and Administrators, See. 158; In re Battle, 158 N.C. 388, 74 S.E. 23.

*230 It is noted that the appeal from the Clerk was heard de novo, by the Presiding Judge, rather than in his appellate capacity by review of the record as approved by numerous decisions of this Court: In re Estate of Johnson, 232 N.C. 59, 64, 59 S.E. 2d 223; In re Will of Hine, 228 N.C. 405, 411, 45 S.E. 2d 526; In re Estate of Styers, 202 N.C. 715, 164 S.E. 123; In re Estate of Wright, 200 N.C. 620, 158 S.E. 192; In re Will of Gulley, 186 N.C. 78, 118 S.E. 839; Edwards v. Cobb, 95 N.C. 4. See also: McIntosh, N. C. P. & P., Sections 65, 72, 696 and 701; Rowland v. Thompson, 64 N.C. 714; In re Estate of Edwards, 234 N.C. 202, 66 S.E. 2d 675; Mills v. McDaniel, 161 N.C. 112, 76 S.E. 551. However, there was no objection or exception to the de novo hearing in the Superior Court, and upon the record as presented no prejudicial error has been made to appear. Therefore the judgment below affirming and approving the former order of the Clerk is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 S.E.2d 421, 236 N.C. 228, 1952 N.C. LEXIS 514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-samsestate-nc-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack