Wyatt v. Sharp

80 S.E.2d 762, 239 N.C. 655, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 630
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMarch 17, 1954
Docket165
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 80 S.E.2d 762 (Wyatt v. Sharp) 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
Wyatt v. Sharp, 80 S.E.2d 762, 239 N.C. 655, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 630 (N.C. 1954).

Opinion

Denny, J.

Here, as in the case of Worsley v. Rendering Co., ante, 547, the defendant entered no exception either to the findings of fact or conclusions of law made by the full Commission. Neither did he except to the award entered. He only gave notice of appeal to the Superior Court for a review as to errors of law.

Therefore, the single question presented to the Superior Court was whether the facts found by the full Commission were sufficient to support the award. No exception having been taken to such findings they are presumed to be supported by the evidence and are binding on appeal. Greene v. Board of Education, 237 N.C. 336, 75 S.E. 2d 129; Greene v. Spivey, 236 N.C. 435, 73 S.E. 2d 488; Wilson v. Robinson, 224 N.C. 851, 32 S.E. 2d 601; Wood v. Bank, 199 N.C. 371, 154 S.E. 623; Sturtevant v. Cotton Mills, 171 N.C. 119, 87 S.E. 992.

Likewise, when an appeal is taken to the Supreme Court and the sole exception is to the signing of the judgment, the exception only challenges the correctness of the judgment and presents the single question whether the facts found are sufficient to support it. Fox v. Mills, Inc., 225 N.C. 580, 35 S.E. 2d 869; Rader v. Coach Co., 225 N.C. 537, 35 S.E. 2d 609; Worsley v. Rendering Co., supra; Glace v. Throwing Co., Inc., post, 668.

The findings of fact on this record are sufficient to support the judgment below, and the exception thereto must be overruled.

Even so, an examination of the record herein discloses that there is competent evidence to support the Commission’s findings of fact upon which it based its award.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.

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

Related

Gore v. myrtle/muller
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2005
Roebuck v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2003
Brown v. Inco, Incorporated
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 1994
Cody v. Snider Lumber Co.
385 S.E.2d 515 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1989)
Jackson v. L.G. DeWitt Trucking Co.
346 S.E.2d 160 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1986)
Self Ex Rel. Self v. Starr-Davis Co.
187 S.E.2d 466 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1972)
Jackson Ex Rel. Jackson v. North Carolina State Highway Commission
158 S.E.2d 865 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1968)
Pratt v. Central Upholstery Co.
115 S.E.2d 27 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)
Freeman v. Bennett
105 S.E.2d 809 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1958)
City of Raleigh v. Morand
100 S.E.2d 870 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)
City of Goldsboro v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.
97 S.E.2d 486 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)
Conner v. United States Rubber Co.
94 S.E.2d 486 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
Muilenburg v. Blevins
87 S.E.2d 493 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1955)
James v. Pretlow
86 S.E.2d 759 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1955)
Beaver v. Crawford Paint Co.
82 S.E.2d 113 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
Donnell v. Cox
81 S.E.2d 664 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
80 S.E.2d 762, 239 N.C. 655, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wyatt-v-sharp-nc-1954.