Roach v. . Pritchett

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Roach v. . Pritchett

47 S.E.2d 20, 228 N.C. 747, 1948 N.C. LEXIS 498

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 7, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 47 S.E.2d 20 (Roach v. . Pritchett) 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

Roach v. . Pritchett, 47 S.E.2d 20, 228 N.C. 747, 1948 N.C. LEXIS 498 (N.C. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

BaRNHill, J.

While the facts alleged permit the inferences that the corporation in whose name the property was listed for taxation was a mere dummy; that it never in good faith acquired the automobile supply business of plaintiff; and that he was at all times the true owner thereof, operating the same as his own, the court below reached a contrary conclusion. The testimony offered is not contained in the record. It must be assumed, therefore, that the evidence sustains the findings. Indeed, this is conceded by failure to except thereto.

Furthermore, the only exception in the record is to the judgment entered. This presents the single question, whether the facts found and admitted are sufficient to support the judgment, that is, whether the court correctly applied the law to the facts found. It is insufficient to bring up for review the findings of fact or the evidence upon which they are based. Rader v. Coach Co., 225 N. C., 537, 35 S. E. (2d), 609, and cited cases; Fox v. Mills, Inc., 225 N. C., 580, 35 S. E. (2d), 869; Lee v. Board of Adjustment, 226 N. C., 107, 37 S. E. (2d), 128; King v. Rudd, 226 N. C., 156, 37 S. E. (2d), 116; Redwine v. Clodfelter, 226 N. C., 366, 38 S. E. (2d), 203; Smith v. Smith, 226 N. C., 506, 39 S. E. (2d), 391; Swink v. Horn, 226 N. C., 713, 40 S. E. (2d), 353; Brown v. Truck Lines, 227 N. C., 65, 40 S. E. (2d), 476.

*749 When the judgment entered is supported by the findings of fact, the judgment will be affirmed. Rader v. Coach Co., supra; Manning v. Insurance Co., 227 N. C., 251, 41 S. E. (2d), 767; Hylton v. Mount Airy, 227 N. C., 622, 44 S. E. (2d), 51; In re Collins, 226 N. C., 412, 38 S. E. (2d), 160.

Levy on the property of plaintiff to satisfy taxes due by the corporation was without warrant in law. The assets plaintiff acquired from the corporation were exempt from levy after the sale to innocent purchasers for value. G. S. 105-385 (c) (5).

The judgment below is

Affirmed.

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

BaRNHill, J.

While the facts alleged permit the inferences that the corporation in whose name the property was listed for taxation was a mere dummy; that it never in good faith acquired the automobile supply business of plaintiff; and that he was at all times the true owner thereof, operating the same as his own, the court below reached a contrary conclusion. The testimony offered is not contained in the record. It must be assumed, therefore, that the evidence sustains the findings. Indeed, this is conceded by failure to except thereto.

Furthermore, the only exception in the record is to the judgment entered. This presents the single question, whether the facts found and admitted are sufficient to support the judgment, that is, whether the court correctly applied the law to the facts found. It is insufficient to bring up for review the findings of fact or the evidence upon which they are based. Rader v. Coach Co., 225 N. C., 537, 35 S. E. (2d), 609, and cited cases; Fox v. Mills, Inc., 225 N. C., 580, 35 S. E. (2d), 869; Lee v. Board of Adjustment, 226 N. C., 107, 37 S. E. (2d), 128; King v. Rudd, 226 N. C., 156, 37 S. E. (2d), 116; Redwine v. Clodfelter, 226 N. C., 366, 38 S. E. (2d), 203; Smith v. Smith, 226 N. C., 506, 39 S. E. (2d), 391; Swink v. Horn, 226 N. C., 713, 40 S. E. (2d), 353; Brown v. Truck Lines, 227 N. C., 65, 40 S. E. (2d), 476.

*749 When the judgment entered is supported by the findings of fact, the judgment will be affirmed. Rader v. Coach Co., supra; Manning v. Insurance Co., 227 N. C., 251, 41 S. E. (2d), 767; Hylton v. Mount Airy, 227 N. C., 622, 44 S. E. (2d), 51; In re Collins, 226 N. C., 412, 38 S. E. (2d), 160.

Levy on the property of plaintiff to satisfy taxes due by the corporation was without warrant in law. The assets plaintiff acquired from the corporation were exempt from levy after the sale to innocent purchasers for value. G. S. 105-385 (c) (5).

The judgment below is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 S.E.2d 20, 228 N.C. 747, 1948 N.C. LEXIS 498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roach-v-pritchett-nc-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack