Sweet v. Martin

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Sweet v. Martin

186 S.E.2d 205, 13 N.C. App. 495, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2271

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 2, 1972

Docket7221DC89

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 186 S.E.2d 205 (Sweet v. Martin) 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

Sweet v. Martin, 186 S.E.2d 205, 13 N.C. App. 495, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2271 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

BRITT, Judge.

Defendants entered no exception to either of the numerous findings of fact made by the trial court and set forth in the *496 judgment; their sole exception pertaining to the judgment is to the signing of the judgment. Exceptions 1, 2, 4 and 5 relate to the competency of certain evidence admitted or excluded at the trial; exceptions 3 and 6 relate to the failure of the trial court to grant defendants’ motions for directed verdict made at the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence and renewed at the close of all the evidence.

A general exception to the judgment and an assignment of error that the court erred in entering the findings of fact and signing the judgment is a broadside assignment of error and does not bring up for review the findings of fact or the evidence on which they are based. Merrell v. Jenkins, 242 N.C. 636, 89 S.E. 2d 242 (1955) and cases therein cited. In Burnsville v. Boone, 231 N.C. 577, 580, 58 S.E. 2d 351, 354 (1950), the Supreme Court said: “Moreover, in the absence of * * * proper exception to the findings of fact, of which defendants complain, exceptions to the admission of evidence, taken during the course of the hearing before the trial judge, as well as the exceptions taken by defendants to the rulings of the judge in denying their motions for judgment as of nonsuit, and assigned as error, are ineffectual. Smith v. Davis, 228 N.C. 172, 45 S.E. 2d 51; Mfg. Co. v. Arnold, 228 N.C. 375, 45 S.E. 2d 577.” The assignments of error based on exceptions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are overruled.

By their exception number 7, defendants except to the signing of the judgment. This exception presents for review the single question as to whether the facts found support the judgment. Merrell v. Jenkins, supra. We hold that the findings of fact amply support the judgment entered by the trial court.

The judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.

Judges Brock and Vaughn concur.

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

BRITT, Judge.

Defendants entered no exception to either of the numerous findings of fact made by the trial court and set forth in the *496 judgment; their sole exception pertaining to the judgment is to the signing of the judgment. Exceptions 1, 2, 4 and 5 relate to the competency of certain evidence admitted or excluded at the trial; exceptions 3 and 6 relate to the failure of the trial court to grant defendants’ motions for directed verdict made at the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence and renewed at the close of all the evidence.

A general exception to the judgment and an assignment of error that the court erred in entering the findings of fact and signing the judgment is a broadside assignment of error and does not bring up for review the findings of fact or the evidence on which they are based. Merrell v. Jenkins, 242 N.C. 636, 89 S.E. 2d 242 (1955) and cases therein cited. In Burnsville v. Boone, 231 N.C. 577, 580, 58 S.E. 2d 351, 354 (1950), the Supreme Court said: “Moreover, in the absence of * * * proper exception to the findings of fact, of which defendants complain, exceptions to the admission of evidence, taken during the course of the hearing before the trial judge, as well as the exceptions taken by defendants to the rulings of the judge in denying their motions for judgment as of nonsuit, and assigned as error, are ineffectual. Smith v. Davis, 228 N.C. 172, 45 S.E. 2d 51; Mfg. Co. v. Arnold, 228 N.C. 375, 45 S.E. 2d 577.” The assignments of error based on exceptions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are overruled.

By their exception number 7, defendants except to the signing of the judgment. This exception presents for review the single question as to whether the facts found support the judgment. Merrell v. Jenkins, supra. We hold that the findings of fact amply support the judgment entered by the trial court.

The judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.

Judges Brock and Vaughn concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 S.E.2d 205, 13 N.C. App. 495, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sweet-v-martin-ncctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack