Wall Ex Rel. Wall v. Timberlake
This text of 158 S.E.2d 780 (Wall Ex Rel. Wall v. Timberlake) 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.
Opinion
The trial in the District Court was without a jury. Judge. Moore heard the evidence,- found and recorded the pertinent facts upon the basis of which he answered issues in favor of the plaintiffs, fixed the amount of damages resulting from the defend-, ant’s negligence and entered judgment in- favor of the plaintiffs.'-The defendant appealed to the Superior Court, assigning as error: (1)-The finding of negligence on the part of the defendant, and (2) The failure to find the plaintiff, was contributorily negligent.
Judge Carr reviewed the record and properly determined the evidence before the District Court was sufficient to support the findings and the judgment. The resolution- of the conflicts in the evidence was the function of the District Court. The appellate courts approve when the evidence is. sufficient to warrant the findings and when error of law does not appear on the face of the record. MacKay v. McIntosh, 270 N.C. 69, 153 S.E. 2d 800; Jenkins v. Castelloe, 208 N.C. 406, 181 S.E. 266.
The judgment entered-in the Superior Court is
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
158 S.E.2d 780, 272 N.C. 731, 1968 N.C. LEXIS 726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wall-ex-rel-wall-v-timberlake-nc-1968.