Ingram v. Home Mortgage Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Ingram v. Home Mortgage Co.

180 S.E. 594, 208 N.C. 329, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 402

DecidedJune 26, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 180 S.E. 594 (Ingram v. Home Mortgage Co.) 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

Ingram v. Home Mortgage Co., 180 S.E. 594, 208 N.C. 329, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 402 (N.C. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

BkogdeN, J.

The first exception is to the judgment itself. This judgment is regular upon its face, and the facts found by the trial judge are sufficient to support the decree. Consequently, the first exception must fail. Warren v. Bottling Co., 207 N. C., 313; Moreland v. Wamboldt, ante, 35.

The second exception is “to the finding and signing of the order of the findings of facts.” It is to be observed that the plaintiff requested no finding of facts, and there is no specific exception to any particular finding of fact. Obviously, some of the findings of fact are necessary and beyond question. The Court is not endowed with the gift of prophecy, and, therefore, is unable to determine which particular finding of fact is objectionable to; the plaintiff.

Hence, the second exception must likewise fail.

Affirmed.

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

BkogdeN, J.

The first exception is to the judgment itself. This judgment is regular upon its face, and the facts found by the trial judge are sufficient to support the decree. Consequently, the first exception must fail. Warren v. Bottling Co., 207 N. C., 313; Moreland v. Wamboldt, ante, 35.

The second exception is “to the finding and signing of the order of the findings of facts.” It is to be observed that the plaintiff requested no finding of facts, and there is no specific exception to any particular finding of fact. Obviously, some of the findings of fact are necessary and beyond question. The Court is not endowed with the gift of prophecy, and, therefore, is unable to determine which particular finding of fact is objectionable to; the plaintiff.

Hence, the second exception must likewise fail.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 S.E. 594, 208 N.C. 329, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingram-v-home-mortgage-co-nc-1935.