Wilson v. City of Charlotte

BkogdeN, J.

It is elementary law that upon appeal to the Supreme Court the appellant must show error. Moreover, this Court can only review such questions as are presented by exceptions duly taken and assignments of error duly made. Thus, in Bakery Co. v. Ins.

Co., 201 *858 N. C., 816, it was beld that “this Court will consider and pass upon only exceptions duly noted by the appellant to decisions of the court below on matters of law or legal inference. ... It has no jurisdiction except to review, upon appeal, decisions of the court below on matters of law or legal inference. It can exercise this jurisdiction only when the decisions of the court below are properly presented by assignments of error based upon exceptions duly taken.”

The only assignment of error in the case at bar is to the “signing of the judgment, . . . having duly excepted to the signing of said judgment.” If said assignment merely refers to the act of signing the judgment, it presents no question of law for review. But, upon the other hand, if it be treated “as an exception to the judgment, it presents the single question whether the facts found or admitted are sufficient to support the judgment.”

Mfg. Co. v. Lumber Co., 178 N. C., 571 , 101 S. E., 214 . Manifestly, the facts found by the trial judge support the judgment. The resolution authorizing the bond issue does not recite that a drill tower is a “necessary expense” of the city of Charlotte, nor does the judge find such fact. Indeed, if it be contended that the words “the court is of opinion” . . . “that the construction of the fire drill tower is not a necessary expense for the city of Charlotte” is a finding of fact, then there is no exception to such finding and no assignment of error based thereon. Consequently, the judgment as written must stand. See Smith v. Texas Co., 200 N. C., 39 , 156 S. E., 160 ;

Messer v. Ins. Co., 205 N. C., 236 .

Affirmed.