Malloy v. Cotton Mills

4 Citing cases

  1. Davis v. Davis

    113 S.E. 613 (N.C. 1922)   Cited 4 times
    In Davis v. Davis, 184 N.C. 108, 113 S.E. 613, the administrator "instead of proceeding to settle the estate, continued the business of his intestate and engaged in farming, merchandising, running sawmills and cottongins."

    This is required not only as a check upon the referee and a safeguard against any possible error on his part, but because he cannot review the referee's findings in any other way." Malloy v. Cotton Mills, 132 N.C. 432; Lambertson v. Vann, 134 N.C. 108; Clark's Code (3 ed.), p. 564, and cases there collected; Ramsey v. Browder, 136 N.C. 251; Comrs. v. Packing Co., 135 N.C. 62. The trouble in this case is that there is confusion, if not contradiction, in the ruling of the court, when considered in connection with the referee's findings of fact, and we cannot proceed to judgment without having the two in some way reconciled with each other.

  2. Caldwell v. Robinson

    103 S.E. 75 (N.C. 1920)   Cited 15 times

    after stating the case: The testimony, upon which Judge Harding based his findings of fact, is not in the transcript, and we must therefore assume that there was sufficient evidence to support them, and this being so, they must be sustained, as we do not review findings of facts in such a case. Dorsey v. Mining Co., 177 N.C. 60, and cases cited; Thompson v. Smith, 156 N.C. 345. It was said in Thompson v. Smith, supra: "If there is any evidence to support the findings, and no error has been committed in receiving or rejecting testimony, and no other question of law is raised with respect to the findings, we accept what the judge has found as final, as we do in the case of a jury," citing Malloy v. Cotton Mills, 132 N.C. 432; Lambertson v. Vann, 134 N.C. 108; Clark's Code (3 ed.), p. 564, and cases there collected; Ramsey v. Browder, 136 N.C. 251, Comrs. v. Packing Co., 135 N.C. 62. The judge acted within his power when he reversed the referee as to the essential facts, although he may have affirmed him in some unimportant respect.

  3. Thompson v. Smith

    156 N.C. 345 (N.C. 1911)   Cited 27 times
    In Thompson v. Smith, 156 N.C. 345, 72 S.E. 379, it is said: "When exceptions are taken to a referee's findings of fact and law, it is the duty of the judge to consider the evidence and give his own opinion and conclusion, both upon the facts and the law.

    The referee is selected, in such cases, in place of a jury, and the judge so acts when he reviews the referee. If there is any evidence to support the findings and no error has been committed in receiving or rejecting testimony, and no other question of law is raised with respect to the findings, we accept what the judge has found as final, as we do in the case of a jury. Malloy v. Cotton Mills, 132 N.C. 432; Lambertson v. Vann, 134 N.C. 108; Clark's Code (3 Ed.), p. 564, and cases there collected; Ramsey v. Browder, 136 N.C. 251; Commissioners v. Packing Co., 135 N.C. 62. When exceptions are taken to a referee's findings of fact and law, it is the duty of the judge to consider the evidence and give his own opinion and conclusion, both upon the facts and the law.

  4. Brown v. R. R

    154 N.C. 300 (N.C. 1911)   Cited 17 times
    In Brown v. East Carolina Railroad Co., 154 N.C. 300, 70 S.E. 625, the court allowed as damages for breach of contract the rental value of equipment kept idle by failure to deliver materials.

    The issue of indebtedness between these parties is dependent largely upon disputed questions of fact, and these having been resolved against defendant by the referees and on relevant testimony, and their findings having been affirmed by the trial court, there is very little left for our consideration. It has been uniformly held, with us, that in actions of this character "The findings of fact by a referee, supported by evidence and sustained by the trial court, are not reversible." Malloy v. Lincoln Mills, 132 N.C. 432; Lambertson v. Vann, 134 N.C. 108. And we are of opinion that the exceptions to the conclusions of law were properly overruled.