Williamson v. . Spivey

30 S.E.2d 46, 224 N.C. 311, 1944 N.C. LEXIS 358

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: May 10, 1944
• Status: Published

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The motion of the plaintiff to remand to the clerk perhaps would have been allowed, but for the order entered at the Becember Term, 1942, finding the report of the referees to be in compliance with their appointment, “to determine the matters at issue,” and this finding was made without objection on the part of the plaintiff. It is recited in the report that the cause was referred to the referees “for the purpose of finding the true dividing line between the lands of the plaintiff . . . and the lands of the defendant.” McIntosh on Procedure, 563. True, the plaintiff avers the reference was simply to locate the “agreed line,” but the report indicates a different understanding on the part of a majority of the- referees, which was confirmed by Judge Carr without objection.

In addition, the defendant is entitled to call to his aid the principle of omnia rite acta praesumuntur and the prima facie presumption of rightful jurisdiction which arises from the fact that a court of general jurisdiction has acted in the matter. S. v. Adams, 213 N. C., 243, 195 S. E., 822; Graham v. Floyd, 214 N. C., 77, 197 S. E., 873; Keen v. Parker, 217 N. C., 378, 8 S. E. (2d), 209. Cf. Beck v. Bottling Co., 216 N. C., 579, 5 S. E. (2d), 855.

The exceptions to the report of the referees present no serious difficulty. They are without substantial merit. The reference, as well as its composition, appears to have been made without “objection on the part of either the plaintiff or the defendant.” G. S., 1-189; McIntosh on Procedure, 570. Hence, the findings of the referees, approved as they are by the trial court, are conclusive on appeal, unless there be no evidence to support them or some error of law has been committed in the hearing of the cause. Wilson v. Allsbrook, 205 N. C., 597, 172 S. E., 217; Corbett v. R. R., 205 N. C., 85, 170 S. E., 129; Thompson v. Smith, 156 N. C., 345, 72 S. E., 379 (opinion by Walker, J., pointing out the difference between the duties of the trial court, Anderson v. McRae, 211 N. C., 197, 189 S. E., 639, and the appellate court in dealing with exceptions to reports of referees).

As no reversible error has been made to appear, the result will be upheld.

Affirmed.

BaRNHill, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.