Œttinger Lumber Co. v. W. I. Anderson & Co.

146 S.E. 88, 196 N.C. 474, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 17
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided January 9, 1929·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The evidence taken before the referee, and upon which the judge made his finding as to the nonliability of the Leaksville Lumber Company as principal on the bond in suit, is not incorporated in the record; hence we are not able to say that the finding is without any evidence to support it. The presumption is otherwise. S. v. Jackson, 183 N. C., 695, 110 S. E., 593; McGeorge v. Nicola, 173 N. C., 707, 91 S. E., 708.

It is assumed, on appeal, in the first instance, that the judgment of the Superior Court is correct, and the party alleging error must show it. J ones v. Candler, ante, 382.

As no error has been made to appear, the judgment must be upheld.

Affirmed.

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

Œttinger Lumber Co. v. W. I. Anderson & Co., 146 S.E. 88, 196 N.C. 474, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 17 (N.C. 1929).

146 S.E. 88 (Œttinger Lumber Co. v. W. I. Anderson & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rutledge v. . Fitzgerald
147 S.E. 816 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1929)
State v. . Jackson
110 S.E. 593 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1922)