Klutts v. McKenzie

• Decision Date: 31 January 1871
• Citation: Klutts v. McKenzie, 65 N.C. 102 (N.C. 1871)
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE on the relation of THEODORE KLUTTS v. M. S. MCKENZIE and others.

65 N.C. 102

STATE on the relation of THEODORE KLUTTS

v.M. S. MCKENZIE and others.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January Term, 1871.

If a suit which involves the taking an account, be referred, it is the duty of the referees to state distinctly in their report their conclusions both as to matters of fact and matters of law, so that the Judge may review their findings both as to the facts and the law, and that the Supreme Court may, in case of an appeal, review his decision upon questions of law.

In a case involving the settlement of a complicated account, the C. C. P. (see sections 245 and 246) requires that it be referred to referees to state an account, and objections to their report must be made by way of exceptions to it, and neither party has the right to require the facts to be passed upon by a jury.

This was a civil action upon a guardian bond brought in the Superior Court of ROWAN County, which was upon the motion of the plaintiff's attorneys referred to T. G. Haughton and D. H. Davis for an account and report. The referees having acted and returned a report to the Fall Term, 1870, of the Court, each party filed exceptions to it, which it is unnecessary to state. The referees, in their report, set out all the evidence, but did not find the facts upon which their conclusions were based. The exceptions were argued by counsel on both sides, when his Honor, Judge Henry, without finding the facts distinctly, but referring to portions only of the evidence, gave a judgment for the relators of the plaintiff, from which the defendants appealed.

Boyden & Bailey and Bragg & Strong, for the defendants .

Blackmer & McCorkle and Battle & Sons for the plaintiff .

PEARSON, C. J.

We feel satisfied, from the manner in which this case is now brought up, that it cannot go off upon its merits.

The referees set out the evidence, but do not find the facts, and it is impossible to see the principles of law on which they base their conclusions; seemingly, the results arrived at, is upon the idea of making a fair compromise.

His Honor does not find the facts distinctly, but leaves them to be inferred by reference to portions of the evidence, and the difference in the result, is so material, to-wit: near $10,000, as to cause this Court to hesitate, and decline to grope its way in the dark, for fear a decision upon the matter as now presented will not meet the merits of the case. Indeed it is impossible for us to come to any satisfactory conclusion...