Jamison v. City of Charlotte

79 S.E.2d 797, 239 N.C. 423, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 370
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 29, 1954
Docket538
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 79 S.E.2d 797 (Jamison v. City of Charlotte) 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
Jamison v. City of Charlotte, 79 S.E.2d 797, 239 N.C. 423, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 370 (N.C. 1954).

Opinion

Parker, J.

“In pleading a private statute or right derived therefrom it is sufficient to refer to the statute by its title or the day of its ratification, and the court shall thereupon take judicial notice of it.” G.S. 1-157.

When a jury trial is waived under the provisions of G.S. 1-184, G.S. 1-185 requires that the court’s decision “shall be given in writing, and shall contain a statement of the facts found, and the conclusions of law separately.” The judge must state his findings of fact and his conclusions of law separately. Woodard v. Mordecai, 234 N.C. 463, 67 S.E. 2d 639; Bradham v. Robinson, 236 N.C. 589, 73 S.E. 2d 555.

The sole finding of fact made by the court below is “the court finds as a fact that said Library Bonds are for a public purpose, having been duly authorized by a vote of the people in accordance with Chapter 1034 of the North Carolina Session Laws of 1949.”

If the facts are as stated in the appellees’ brief, and if so found by the trial court, we deem them material, so that we may more accurately and safely pass upon the court’s conclusions of law. *427 We are of the opinion that the court below has not sufficiently complied with the requirement of G.S. 1-185 in that the court’s decision does not contain a statement of the facts found, and that the case should be remanded in order that sufficient facts may be found as required by the statute. Shore v. Bank, 207 N.C. 798, 178 S.E. 572; Trust Co. v. Transit Lines, 198 N.C. 675, 153 S.E. 158; Knott v. Taylor, 96 N.C. 553, 2 S.E. 680.

The parties shall be permitted to amend their pleadings, if they so desire.

It is ordered that the case be

Eemanded.

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

Related

Poag v. Powell, Comr. of Motor Vehicles
250 S.E.2d 93 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1979)
Hinson v. Jefferson
215 S.E.2d 102 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1975)
Rock v. Ballou
209 S.E.2d 476 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1974)
Jones v. Murdock
203 S.E.2d 102 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1974)
Security National Bank of Greensboro v. Educators Mutual Life Insurance
143 S.E.2d 270 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965)
State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Haywood Electric Membership Corp.
131 S.E.2d 865 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1963)
Helms v. City of Charlotte
122 S.E.2d 817 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1961)
Morehead v. Harris
120 S.E.2d 425 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
79 S.E.2d 797, 239 N.C. 423, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jamison-v-city-of-charlotte-nc-1954.