Miller v. . Groome

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Miller v. . Groome

13 S.E. 840, 109 N.C. 148

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 5, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 13 S.E. 840 (Miller v. . Groome) 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

Miller v. . Groome, 13 S.E. 840, 109 N.C. 148 (N.C. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Davis, J.:

This was a reference under The Code, and the referee, as was his duty, reported the facts found and his conclusions of law separately, and he also reported the evidence upon which he found the facts, and, as a matter of right, either party could file exceptions, appeal and have the report reviewed by the Judge of the Superior Court, whose duty it is to consider the exceptions and set aside, modify or confirm the report, according to his judgment, and his ruling upon the findings of fact is conclusive upon this Court, but his rulings upon questions of law are subject to review here. Commissioners v. Magnin, 85 N. C., 114, and , cases cited; McNeill v. Hodges, 105 N. C., 52. The plaintiff filed exceptions to the referee’s report, both as to findings of fact and conclusions of law. One of the exceptions was to the competency of testimony, which, if overruled, would be the subject of review in this Court. It was clearly the right of the appellant to have the report of the referee reviewed by the Judge. The Code, § 423. It was perfectly competent, upon review, if he so thought, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law ©f the referee, and then they wTould become the findings and conclusions of the Court; but it was error in his Honor to summarily dispose of the exceptions by overruling them and confirming the report, without reviewing and passing upon them judicially.

Error.

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

Davis, J.:

This was a reference under The Code, and the referee, as was his duty, reported the facts found and his conclusions of law separately, and he also reported the evidence upon which he found the facts, and, as a matter of right, either party could file exceptions, appeal and have the report reviewed by the Judge of the Superior Court, whose duty it is to consider the exceptions and set aside, modify or confirm the report, according to his judgment, and his ruling upon the findings of fact is conclusive upon this Court, but his rulings upon questions of law are subject to review here. Commissioners v. Magnin, 85 N. C., 114, and , cases cited; McNeill v. Hodges, 105 N. C., 52. The plaintiff filed exceptions to the referee’s report, both as to findings of fact and conclusions of law. One of the exceptions was to the competency of testimony, which, if overruled, would be the subject of review in this Court. It was clearly the right of the appellant to have the report of the referee reviewed by the Judge. The Code, § 423. It was perfectly competent, upon review, if he so thought, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law ©f the referee, and then they wTould become the findings and conclusions of the Court; but it was error in his Honor to summarily dispose of the exceptions by overruling them and confirming the report, without reviewing and passing upon them judicially.

Error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 S.E. 840, 109 N.C. 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-groome-nc-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack