Marshville Cotton Mills Inc v. Maslin

• Decision Date: 27 January 1931
• Docket Number: No. 13.,13.
• Citation: 156 S.E. 484,200 N.C. 328
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: MARSHVILLE COTTON MILLS, Inc. v. MASLIN et al.

156 S.E. 484

(200 N. C. 328)

MARSHVILLE COTTON MILLS, Inc.

v.MASLIN et al.

No. 13.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 27, 1931.

Appeal from Superior Court, Beaufort County; Small, Judge.

Action by the Marshville Cotton Mills, Inc., against Thomas Maslin and others. From the judgment, R. C. Vaughan, receiver of Moore County Farms, appeals.

Affirmed.

Civil action to recover on a $65,000 note and to determine the priority of certain mortgages. The pleas interposed also rendered an accounting necessary.

Over objections duly entered, a reference was ordered and the matter heard by Hon. Stephen C. Bragaw, who found the facts and reported the same, together with his conclusions of law, to the court.

Appellant filed a number of exceptions to the report of the referee, tendered issues atthe end of his exceptions, and demanded a jury trial thereon. A jury trial was denied because the issues tendered were not based on the facts pointed out in the exceptions and raised by the pleadings and the demand not sufficiently specific. Counsel for appellant then declined to argue his exceptions before the judge, unless opposing counsel would "agree that he could do so without prejudice to his right to a trial upon the issues submitted."

From a judgment affirming the report of the referee, the receiver of Moore County Farms, Inc., appeals, assigning errors.

Parrish & Deal, of Winston-Salem, for receiver of Moore County Farms.

O. O. Efird, of Winston-Salem and Ward & Grimes, of Washington, N. C, for W. M. Nissen.

STACY, C. J.

The first exception imputes error to the trial court in ordering a reference in this case. The exception is without merit. C. S. § 573, provides for a compulsory reference, "2. Where the taking of an account is necessary for the information of the court, before judgment, or for carrying a judgment or order into effect." Chalk v. Bank, 87 N. C. 200.

"Our statutes * * * relating to trials by referees serve a useful purpose, and must be liberally construed. They aid and simplify the work which would otherwise fall upon the court and jury, and often expedite the litigation, and save the parties from trouble and expensive trials, and are a saving in time to witnesses and attorneys." Faircloth, C. J., in Jones v. Beaman, 117 N. C. 259, 23 S. E. 248, 249.

The appellant next complains at the action of the trial court in overruling his motion for a jury trial on the issues tendered by him. The ruling of the court is supported by what was said in Booker v....