Wilson v. . Beasley

134 S.E. 485, 192 N.C. 231, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 267
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedSeptember 29, 1926
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 134 S.E. 485 (Wilson v. . Beasley) 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
Wilson v. . Beasley, 134 S.E. 485, 192 N.C. 231, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 267 (N.C. 1926).

Opinion

Pee OueiaM.

This Court will not review exceptions to • a referee’s report unless they are passed upon by the court below, and the rulings of the court below are especially assigned as error in the transcript on appeal to the Supreme Court.

Exceptions and assignments of error relied upon on appeal to the Supreme Court should be taken and stated in the record to findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the court below. Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, Rule 19(3) and 21, 185 N. C., p. 194-5.

On the present record this was not done. There is no evidence in the •record. From the record the only assignment of error from the Rules that we can consider is to the judgment of the court below, to which exception and assignment of error is made to this Court. This was a consent reference. As to reserving trial by jury in compulsory references, see Jenkins v. Parker, ante, 188.

From the findings of fact by the court below, we can discover no reversible or prejudicial error on the record. Therefore the judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.

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

Related

Sprinkle v. City of Reidsville
69 S.E.2d 179 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 S.E. 485, 192 N.C. 231, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-beasley-nc-1926.