Eley v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 March 1914
• Citation: 80 S.E. 1064,165 N.C. 78
• Parties: ELEY v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

80 S.E. 1064

165 N.C. 78

ELEY v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

March 4, 1914

Appeal from Superior Court, Hertford County; Peebles, Judge.

Action by J. A. Eley against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

In action for loss of goods through carrier's negligence judgment finding that the evidence failed to show defendant's negligence and adjudging that plaintiff take nothing held to comply with Revisal 1905, § 541, requiring decision in writing, stating separately the finding of fact and conclusion of law.

This is an action to recover the value of certain goods alleged to have been negligently destroyed by fire while in the warehouse of the defendant.

Both parties introduced evidence, and his honor rendered the following judgment: "By consent a jury trial was expressly waived, and both law and fact submitted to the judge. It was admitted that defendant was not liable as common carrier, but solely as warehouseman, and the sole question of fact submitted is: 'Did the defendant, by its negligence, cause the burning of its warehouse at Tunis?' The court, being of the opinion that the evidence fails to show that defendant's negligence caused said fire, so finds, and adjudges that plaintiff take nothing by his action, and that defendant go hence without day."

The plaintiff excepted and appealed, for that:

"(1) The court failed to set out the facts found and the conclusions of law separately, and contended that upon the evidence submitted in this case, and the law arising thereon, the defendant company was guilty of negligence. The court declined so to find, and plaintiffs excepted.

(2) Because the court declined to hold that the defendant company was guilty of negligence in law arising on the facts therein.

(3) The court rendered judgment as appears of record."

Roswell C. Bridger, of Winton, for appellant.

Pruden & Pruden, of Edenton, and S. Brown Shepherd, of Raleigh, for appellee.

ALLEN J.

A jury trial being waived, the findings of fact by the judge are as conclusive as the verdict of a jury, when there is evidence to support them (Matthews v. Fry, 143 N.C. 385, 55 S.E. 787); and in this case it cannot be said there was no evidence to support the findings, because the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to establish negligence, and his honor had the right, which a jury could have exercised, to say...