Weddle v. Weddle

98 S.E.2d 302, 246 N.C. 336, 1957 N.C. LEXIS 416
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMay 22, 1957
Docket667
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 98 S.E.2d 302 (Weddle v. Weddle) 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
Weddle v. Weddle, 98 S.E.2d 302, 246 N.C. 336, 1957 N.C. LEXIS 416 (N.C. 1957).

Opinion

PER OüRiam.

The respondent’s only exception is found in the appeal entries. It embraces (1) the refusal of the court to sign the judgment tendered by the respondent, (2) the findings of fact contained in the judgment entered by the court, and (3) the judgment as entered. The exception is broadside and is ineffectual to support an assignment of error to the judgment tendered and refused or to the findings of fact. Suits v. Insurance Co., 241 N.C. 483, 85 S.E. 2d 602. Similarly, the assignments of error to the judgment tendered and to the findings of fact are broadside in form. These assignments present nothing for review. This is so both because of their broadside form and for the further reason that they are unsupported by valid exceptions. Putnam v. Publications, 245 N.C. 432, 96 S.E. 2d 445; Waddell v. Carson, 245 N.C. 669, 97 S.E. 2d 222; S. v. Worley, ante, 202, 97 S.E. 2d 837. However, the respondent’s appeal itself constitutes an exception to the *338 judgment and supports for review purposes the assignment of error based thereon. But this assignment presents only the questions whether the facts found support the judgment and whether error of law appears upon the face of the record. Goldsboro v. R. R., ante, 101, 97 S.E. 2d 486; Muilenburg v. Blevins, 242 N.C. 271, 87 S.E. 2d 493. This assignment of error does not present for review the findings of fact or the evidence upon which they are based. Merrell v. Jenkins, 242 N.C. 636, 89 S.E. 2d 242.

A careful examination of the record discloses that the findings of fact made by the court below support the judgment. No error appears upon the face of the record. The appeal presents no new question of law requiring discussion.

The judgment of the Superior Court will be upheld.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Thomas v. Thomas
260 S.E.2d 163 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1979)
Hagins v. Redevelopment Commission of Greensboro
159 S.E.2d 584 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1968)
Hagins v. Aero Mayflower Transit Co.
159 S.E.2d 592 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1968)
Hagins v. South Atlantic Bonded Warehouse Corp.
159 S.E.2d 596 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1968)
Harriet Cotton Mills v. Local Union No. 578, Textile Workers Union of America
111 S.E.2d 457 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1959)
Caldwell v. Bradford
102 S.E.2d 399 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1958)
In re the Foreclosure of Hardin
102 S.E.2d 420 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 S.E.2d 302, 246 N.C. 336, 1957 N.C. LEXIS 416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weddle-v-weddle-nc-1957.