Jones v. Murdock

203 S.E.2d 102, 20 N.C. App. 746, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2543
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 20, 1974
Docket7419DC30
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 203 S.E.2d 102 (Jones v. Murdock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jones v. Murdock, 203 S.E.2d 102, 20 N.C. App. 746, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2543 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

Opinion

CARSON, Judge.

The only assignment of error presented on appeal is in the failure of the trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law to support judgment. The only finding or conclusion is that the defendant Parks is indebted to the plaintiff in the amount of $1,484.85 plus interest. Rule 52(a) (1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure dictates the necessary ingredients for the judgment when the matter is heard without an jury. It states:

(a) Findings — (1) In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment.

The plaintiff, while conceding that the trial court did not comply with provisions above stated, maintains that the error was a mere technical one which would not warrant a new trial. The deficiency, however, is more than a technical one. The necessity for the finding of facts and entry thereof, and for the conclusions of law to be drawn from the facts, is to allow review by the appellate courts. Without such findings and conclusions, we are unable to determine whether or not the judge correctly found the facts or applied the law thereto. Morehead v. Harris, 255 N.C. 130, 120 S.E. 2d 425 (1961); Jamison v. Charlotte, 239 N.C. 423, 79 S.E. 2d 797 (1954); Watts v. Supt. of Building Inspection, 1 N.C. App. 292, 161 S.E. 2d 210 (1968). Without such findings we may only surmise what the trial court found. Hence, a new trial must be awarded.

New trial.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Morris concur.

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

Related

DiIaconi v. New Cal Corp.
643 P.2d 1234 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1982)
Rosenthal's Bootery, Inc. v. Shavitz
268 S.E.2d 250 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1980)
Poston v. Poston
252 S.E.2d 240 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1979)
O'Neill v. Southern National Bank
252 S.E.2d 231 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1979)
Poag v. Powell, Comr. of Motor Vehicles
250 S.E.2d 93 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1979)
Montgomery v. Montgomery
231 S.E.2d 26 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
203 S.E.2d 102, 20 N.C. App. 746, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-murdock-ncctapp-1974.