Shore v. Norfolk National Bank of Commerce

178 S.E. 572, 207 N.C. 798, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 271
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 27, 1935
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 178 S.E. 572 (Shore v. Norfolk National Bank of Commerce) 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
Shore v. Norfolk National Bank of Commerce, 178 S.E. 572, 207 N.C. 798, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 271 (N.C. 1935).

Opinion

ScheNOK, J.

Section 569 of the Consolidated Statutes provides: “Upon trial of an issue of fact by the court, its decision shall be given in writing, and shall contain a statement of the facts found, and the conclusions of law separately.”

The decision of the court as it relates to “the facts found” contains only the following: “The court finds the facts to be as testified to by P. C. Shore, the only witness at the trial, both as to his direct and cross-examination, and as shown by the written and record evidence introduced, and the admissions in the pleadings.” We do not think this is a compliance with the requirements of the statute that the court’s decision “shall contain a statement of the facts found.” It does nothing more than indicate from what source the facts may be gleaned.

Where a case is left by consent to be tried both as to the facts and the law by the court, and it fails to find the material facts, the case may be remanded in order that such facts may be so found. Knott v. Taylor, 96 N. C., 553; Trust Co. v. Transit Lines, 198 N. C., 675.

In the absence of sufficient and definite findings of fact, we are minded to remand the case to the Superior Court to the end that the facts may be sufficiently and definitely found, that we may more accurately and safely pass upon the conclusions of law. It is accordingly so ordered.

Remanded.

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

Related

In re L.L.
616 S.E.2d 392 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)
Fox v. Miller
173 S.E.2d 607 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1970)
Arnold v. Ray Charles Enterprises, Inc.
141 S.E.2d 14 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965)
State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Haywood Electric Membership Corp.
131 S.E.2d 865 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1963)
Morehead v. Harris
120 S.E.2d 425 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1961)
Morris v. Wilkins
85 S.E.2d 892 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1955)
Jamison v. City of Charlotte
79 S.E.2d 797 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
Woodard v. Mordecai
67 S.E.2d 639 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
178 S.E. 572, 207 N.C. 798, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shore-v-norfolk-national-bank-of-commerce-nc-1935.