Clayton Banking Co. v. Farmers Bank

Stacy, 0. J.

Even if it be conceded that the original order of confirmation was irregularly entered, still no harm seems to have come to movant, as later decreed by the judgment at the September Term, which also apparently amounts to an order of confirmation. But, however this may be, the record is barren of any factual determination upon which a reversal of the judgment could be predicated.

Hospital v. Rockingham County, ante, 205.

In a motion of this kind, where .the correctness of the court’s ruling is dependent upon facts aliunde or dehors the record, a request should be made that the facts be found, otherwise it will be presumed that they were determined in support of the judgment.

Dunn v. Wilson, 210 N. C., 493 , 187 S. E., 802 ;

Powell v. Bladen County, 206 N. C., 46 , 173 S. E., 50 ;

S. v. Dalton, ibid., 507, 174 S. E., 422 ;

Comr. of Revenue v. Realty Co., 204 N. C., 123 , 167 S. E., 563 ;

S. v. Harris, ibid., 422, 168 S. E., 498 ;

Rutledge v. Fitzgerald, 197 N. C., 163 , 147 S. E., 816 ;

Holcomb v. Holcomb, 192 N. C., 504 , 135 S. E., 287 ;

Mfg. Co. v. Foy Seawell Lbr. Co., 177 N. C., 404 , 99 S. E., 104 ;

Gardiner v. May, 172 N. C., 192 , 89 S. E., 955 ;

Lumber Co. v. Buhmann, 160 N. C., 385 , 75 S. E., 1008 .

On the record as presented, no error is apparent.

Affirmed.