Marshville Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Maslin

156 S.E. 484, 200 N.C. 328, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 317
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 27, 1931
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 156 S.E. 484 (Marshville Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Maslin) 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
Marshville Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Maslin, 156 S.E. 484, 200 N.C. 328, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 317 (N.C. 1931).

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The first exception imputes error to the trial court in ordering a reference in this case. The exception is without merit. C. S., 573, provides for a compulsory reference, “2. Where the taking of an account is necessary for the information of the court, before judgment, or for carrying a judgment or order into effect.” Chalk v. Bank, 87 N. C., 200.

“Our statutes relating to trials by referees serve a useful purpose and must be liberally construed. They aid and simplify the work which would otherwise fall upon the court and jury, and often expedite the litigation and save the parties from trouble and expensive trials, and are a saving in time to witnesses and attorneys” — Faircloth, C. J., in Jones v. Beaman, 117 N. C., 259, 23 S. E., 248.

The appellant next complains at the action of the trial court in overruling his motion for a jury trial on the issues tendered by him. The ruling of the court is supported by what was said in Booker v. Highlands, 198 N. C., 282, 151 S. E., 635; Robinson v. Johnson, 174 N. C., 232, 93 S. E., 743, and Driller Co. v. Worth, 117 N. C., 515, 23 S. E., 427.

A party who would preserve his right to a jury trial in a compulsory reference must object to the order of reference at the time it is made, and on the coming in of the report of the referee, if it be adverse, he should seasonably file exceptions to particular findings of fact made by the referee, tender appropriate issues based on the facts pointed out in the exceptions and raised by the pleadings, and demand a jury trial on each of the issues thus tendered. Wilson v. Featherstone, 120 N. C., 446, 27 S. E., 124; Yelverton v. Coley, 101 N. C., 248, 7 S. E., 672. This was nqt done in the instant case. Although a party may duly enter his objection to the order of reference, he may yet waive his right to a jury trial by failing to assert such right definitely and specifically in each exception to the referee’s report and by his failing to tender the proper issues. Alley v. Rogers, 170 N. C., 538, 87 S. E., 326.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Coburn v. Roanoke Land & Timber Corp.
130 S.E.2d 30 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1963)
Godwin v. Hinnant
108 S.E.2d 658 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1959)
Perry v. Doub
106 S.E.2d 582 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1959)
Better Home Furniture Co. of Winston-Salem v. Baron
91 S.E.2d 236 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
White v. Price
75 S.E.2d 244 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)
Bartlett v. Hopkins
69 S.E.2d 236 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
Simmons v. Lee
53 S.E.2d 79 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1949)
Cheshire v. . First Presbyterian Church
33 S.E.2d 866 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1945)
Grimes v. Home Insurance Co. of New York
7 S.E.2d 557 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Gurganus v. . McLawhorn
193 S.E. 844 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Anderson v. . McRae
189 S.E. 639 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Texas Co. v. . Phillips
174 S.E. 115 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
156 S.E. 484, 200 N.C. 328, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marshville-cotton-mills-inc-v-maslin-nc-1931.