Similarly, we have also determined that, "[w]hen a judgment has been entered on seemingly inconsistent findings of fact, it is the duty of the reviewing court to reconcile the findings and uphold the judgment if practicable." Davis v. Ludlum , 255 N.C. 663, 666, 122 S.E.2d 500, 502 (1961) (citing Bradham v. Robinson , 236 N.C. 589, 593, 73 S.E.2d 555, 558 (1952) ). 1. Statements to Piazza

00 immediately before the accident. Davis v. Ludlum, 255 N.C. 663, 122 S.E.2d 500 (1961); Palmer v. Highway Commission, supra. Plaintiff's reluctance to have the purchase price before the jury is understandable. Even so, nothing appears which would render the evidence inadmissible. He will have ample opportunity to explain to the jury the nature of the government sale, the fair market value of the boat, and any benefit of bargain he claims. If he bought a bargain he, not the defendants, is entitled to the benefit of it.

The error must be prejudicial." Davis v. Ludlum, 255 N.C. 663, 122 S.E.2d 500. After all, two vehicles slammed into each other in the intersection in broad daylight, injuring the passenger in one of them. One driver may have been more or less negligent than the other, but the law does not measure negligence on a percentage basis in cases of this nature.

We are of opinion that the material facts set forth in the stipulations and agreed facts, when considered in connection with the plaintiffs' complaint and the appellant's answer, are in such a state of confusion, inconsistency, and conflict in respect to the two deeds and the lots therein conveyed that we cannot safely and accurately decide the question attempted to be raised on this appeal. A judgment will not be supported by findings of fact or by stipulations and agreed facts which are actually antagonistic, inconsistent, or contradictory as to material matters. Davis v. Ludlum, 255 N.C. 663, 122 S.E.2d 500; 89 C.J.S., Trial, secs. 635 and 636. However, courts endeavor to reconcile findings of fact and stipulations and agreed facts as to material matters which appear to be contradictory, so as to uphold the judgment if possible, but this rule cannot be used to uphold findings of fact or stipulations and agreed facts as to material matters that are really inconsistent with each other. Bradham v. Robinson, 236 N.C. 589, 73 S.E.2d 555; 89 C.J.S., ibid. Therefore it is ordered that the judgment be vacated, and the case be remanded in order that the facts in respect to the two deeds and the two lots therein conveyed may be accurately and truly presented for decision.

One of our roles in reviewing findings of fact is to reconcile apparently inconsistent findings and uphold the judgment when practicable. Davis v. Ludlum, 255 N.C. 663, 122 S.E.2d 500 (1961); Spencer v. Spencer, 70 N.C. App. 159, 319 S.E.2d 636 (1984). We presume the correctness of the judgment.

However, this Court must endeavor to reconcile apparently inconsistent findings and uphold the judgment when practicable. Id.; Davis v. Ludlum, 255 N.C. 663, 122 S.E.2d 500 (1961). We can harmonize these apparently conflicting findings quite easily by avoiding husband's unduly literal stress on the word "the" in the first cited finding.

`New trials are not awarded because of technical errors. The error must be prejudicial.' Davis v. Ludlum, 255 N.C. 663, 122 S.E.2d 500."

We are of the opinion and so hold that it was not prejudicial error under the facts and circumstances of this case to test the witness' memory on cross-examination as to what he had paid for the property. Davis v. Ludlum, 255 N.C. 663, 122 S.E.2d 500 (1961); see also Stansbury, N.C. Evidence 2d 42. In the trial we find