Rutledge v. . Fitzgerald

147 S.E. 816, 197 N.C. 163, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 178
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided May 1, 1929·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant did not request the court below to find the facts upon which the rulings of the court below were based. In the absence of such finding, it is presumed that the court below, upon proper evidence, found facts sufficient to support the judgment. The whole matter is fully discussed and decisions cited in Holcomb v. Holcomb, 192 N. C., 504; Helderman v. Mills Co., 192 N. C., 626. See Lumber Co. v. Anderson, 196 N. C., 474; Realty Corp. v. Fisher, 196 N. C., 503; Coach Co. v. Griffin, 196 N. C., 559. The judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.

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

Rutledge v. . Fitzgerald, 147 S.E. 816, 197 N.C. 163, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 178 (N.C. 1929).

147 S.E. 816 (Rutledge v. . Fitzgerald) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McCune v. Rhodes-Rhyne Manufacturing Co.
8 S.E.2d 219 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Clayton Banking Co. v. Farmers Bank
190 S.E. 472 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Powell v. . Bladen County
173 S.E. 50 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)