Rose & Day, Inc. v. Cleary

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Rose & Day, Inc. v. Cleary

187 S.E.2d 359, 14 N.C. App. 125, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2054

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 29, 1972

Docket7223DC169

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 187 S.E.2d 359 (Rose & Day, Inc. v. Cleary) 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

Rose & Day, Inc. v. Cleary, 187 S.E.2d 359, 14 N.C. App. 125, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2054 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

BRITT, Judge.

Defendant assigns as error the denial of his motion for a trial by jury. In his brief defendant admits that he did not demand a jury trial as provided by Rule 38 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and that his motion for trial by jury was based on Rule 39(b). Rule 39(b) provides as follows: “Issues not demanded for trial by jury as provided in Rule 38 shall be tried by the court; but, notwithstanding the failure of a party to demand a trial by jury in an action in which such a demand might have been made of right, the court in its discretion upon motion or of its own initiative may order a trial by jury of any or all issues.” (Emphasis added.) Clearly the allowance of a jury trial under this section is within the discretion of the trial court and no abuse of discretion is made to appear in the present case. The assignment of error is overruled.

In his next assignment of error, defendant contends that the court abused its discretion in reopening the case at the close of all the evidence after plaintiff and defendant had rested and allowing plaintiff to introduce further evidence. There is no merit in this contention. The trial court in its discretion may allow a plaintiff or defendant to introduce further evidence after they have rested. State v. Satterfield, 207 N.C. 118, 176 S.E. 466 (1934) ; Featherston v. Wilson, 123 N.C. 623, 31 S.E. 843 (1898) ; Smith v. Perkins, 5 N.C. App. 120, 168 S.E. 2d 14 (1969). See also Williams v. Averitt, 10 N.C. 308 (1824) and Kelly v. Goodbread, 4 N.C. 468 (1816). Defendant has failed to show any abuse of discretion in the present case, therefore, the assignment of error is overruled.

*127 Finally, defendant contends that the evidence did not support the findings of fact upon which to base the conclusions of law. The record reveals that defendant did not except to either of the findings of fact or conclusins of law but only to the signing of the judgment.

It is well settled in this jurisdiction that an exception to the findings of fact and conclusions of law and the judgment of the court, without exception to a particular finding, is a broadside exception which does not present for review the admissibility of the evidence on which the findings were made or the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings. 1 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Appeal and Error, § 28, p. 157. Where there are no exceptions to the findings of fact, the findings are presumed to be supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal. Heating Co. v. Realty Co., 263 N.C. 641, 140 S.E. 2d 330 (1965). In the instant case, we hold that the findings of fact fully support the conclusions of law and the judgment.

For the reasons stated, the judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.

Judges Campbell and Graham concur.

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

BRITT, Judge.

Defendant assigns as error the denial of his motion for a trial by jury. In his brief defendant admits that he did not demand a jury trial as provided by Rule 38 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and that his motion for trial by jury was based on Rule 39(b). Rule 39(b) provides as follows: “Issues not demanded for trial by jury as provided in Rule 38 shall be tried by the court; but, notwithstanding the failure of a party to demand a trial by jury in an action in which such a demand might have been made of right, the court in its discretion upon motion or of its own initiative may order a trial by jury of any or all issues.” (Emphasis added.) Clearly the allowance of a jury trial under this section is within the discretion of the trial court and no abuse of discretion is made to appear in the present case. The assignment of error is overruled.

In his next assignment of error, defendant contends that the court abused its discretion in reopening the case at the close of all the evidence after plaintiff and defendant had rested and allowing plaintiff to introduce further evidence. There is no merit in this contention. The trial court in its discretion may allow a plaintiff or defendant to introduce further evidence after they have rested. State v. Satterfield, 207 N.C. 118, 176 S.E. 466 (1934) ; Featherston v. Wilson, 123 N.C. 623, 31 S.E. 843 (1898) ; Smith v. Perkins, 5 N.C. App. 120, 168 S.E. 2d 14 (1969). See also Williams v. Averitt, 10 N.C. 308 (1824) and Kelly v. Goodbread, 4 N.C. 468 (1816). Defendant has failed to show any abuse of discretion in the present case, therefore, the assignment of error is overruled.

*127 Finally, defendant contends that the evidence did not support the findings of fact upon which to base the conclusions of law. The record reveals that defendant did not except to either of the findings of fact or conclusins of law but only to the signing of the judgment.

It is well settled in this jurisdiction that an exception to the findings of fact and conclusions of law and the judgment of the court, without exception to a particular finding, is a broadside exception which does not present for review the admissibility of the evidence on which the findings were made or the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings. 1 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Appeal and Error, § 28, p. 157. Where there are no exceptions to the findings of fact, the findings are presumed to be supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal. Heating Co. v. Realty Co., 263 N.C. 641, 140 S.E. 2d 330 (1965). In the instant case, we hold that the findings of fact fully support the conclusions of law and the judgment.

For the reasons stated, the judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.

Judges Campbell and Graham concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 S.E.2d 359, 14 N.C. App. 125, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2054, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-day-inc-v-cleary-ncctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack