TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Matthews v. Fry.

Matthews v. . Fry

Matthews v. Fry., 55 S.E. 787 (N.C. 1906)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 18, 1906
Judges
Glare
Citations
55 S.E. 787143 N.C. 3841906 N.C. LEXIS 361
Headnotes
Findings of Fact by -Judge — Exceptions—-Oonclusiveness— Appeal — Reversal. 1. Where the parties waived a jury trial and agreed that the Judge should find the facts and enter judgment thereon, and the Judge found the. facts and entered judgment in favor of the defendant, and upon appeal this Court was of opinion that upon the facts found judgment should have been entered in favor of the plaintiff, and entered its order “Reversed”: Held, that upon presentation of the certificate of opinion, the Court below properly entered judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant’s motion for a trial de novo on the ground that some of the findings of fact had been made without any evidence to -support them, came too late, he having acquiesced in the findings without exception. '2. The findings of fact by the Judge, when authorized by law or consent of parties, are as conclusive as when found by a jury, if there is any evidence.
Summary
ActioN by John G. Matthews against A. M. Ery and another, heard by Judge W. R. Allen and a jury, at the August Term, 1906, of the Superior Court of Swain. Erom the judgment rendered, the defendant appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Glare

Glare, C. J.

“The parties waived a jury trial and agreed in writing that the Judge should find the facts and enter judgment thereon, as upon the facts so found he might decide the law to be.” The Judge found the facts and entered judgment thereon in favor of the defendant. Upon appeal, Matthews v. Fry, 141 N. C., 582 , this Court was of opinion that upon the facts found judgment should have been entered in favor of the plaintiff, and entered its order “Reversed.” When the certificate of opinion was presented in the Court below the *385 plaintiff moved for judgment in accordance therewith. The defendant resisted this judgment and asked for trial de novo and insisted that some of the. findings of fact had been made by the Judge without any evidence to support them.

The judgment was properly entered for plaintiff in accordance with the mandate of this Court to reverse the judgment.

Summerlin v. Cowles, 107 N. C., 462 ;

Bernhardt v. Brown, 118 N. C., 711 . The findings of fact by the Judge when authorized by law or consent of parties are as conclusive as when found by a jury, if there is any evidence.

Branton v. O’Briant, 93 N. C., 103 ;

Roberts v. Ins.

Co., 118 N. C., 435 ;

Walnut v. Wade, 103 U. S., 688 . If there was any ground to except to such findings because without evidence to support the finding, upon any point, or for any other cause, the defendant should have done so and have brought up his side of the case also when the plaintiff appealed, or at least he should have entered an exception so as to preserve his rights. It is not unusual for both' parties h> appeal. Having acquiesced in the findings of fact without exception, it is too late to except now.

If the defendant was dissatisfied with the ruling of this Court upon the law, his remedy was by a petition to rehear —which he did, and the petition was disallowed — and not by a motion for a new.trial in disregard of the mandate of this Court.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 24 cases

View all citing references →
1910: 11912: 11913: 11914: 21918: 41919: 21922: 21924: 11925: 11933: 11937: 11939: 11942: 11943: 11950: 21952: 11973: 119102026peak 1918 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Town of Burnsville v. Boone58 S.E.2d 351 (N.C. 1950)
  2. Radio Station WMFR, Inc. v. Eitel-McCullough, Inc.59 S.E.2d 779 (N.C. 1950)
  3. Ryan v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.70 S.E.2d 853 (N.C. 1952)
  4. Peoples Bank & Trust Co. v. Tar River Lumber Co.19 S.E.2d 138 (N.C. 1942)
  5. Fish v. Hanson25 S.E.2d 461 (N.C. 1943)
  6. State's Prison v. Hoffman & Bros.76 S.E. 3 (N.C. 1912) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY v. Shook193 S.E.2d 392 (N.C. Ct. App. 1973)
  2. Ryan v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.70 S.E.2d 853 (N.C. 1952)
  3. Radio Station WMFR, Inc. v. Eitel-McCullough, Inc.59 S.E.2d 779 (N.C. 1950)
  4. Town of Burnsville v. Boone58 S.E.2d 351 (N.C. 1950)
  5. Fish v. Hanson25 S.E.2d 461 (N.C. 1943)
  6. Peoples Bank & Trust Co. v. Tar River Lumber Co.19 S.E.2d 138 (N.C. 1942)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Walnut v. Wade, 103 U.S. 683 (1881) 57
Matthews v. Fry., 54 S.E. 379 (N.C. 1906) 17
Summerlin v. Cowles, 12 S.E. 234 (N.C. 1890) 13

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list