Sprinkle v. Sprinkle
| Decision Date | 23 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 17,17 |
| Citation | 241 N.C. 713,86 S.E.2d 422 |
| Parties | J. T. SPRINKLE and wife, Lula Sprinkle; Mrs. Minnie V. Pettigrew (widow); B. F. Sprinkle (unmarried); R. L. Sprinkle and wife, Lillian Sprinkle, Philip E. Sprinkle and wife, Margaret Sprinkle; Mrs. Juanita Kimsey (widow); Reginald F. Sprinkle and wife, Annie Young Sprinkle, v. H. L. SPRINKLE and wife, Olie Sprinkle, and H. C. Sprinkle and wife, Sibil Sprinkle; Philip E. Sprinkle and Benjamin F. Sprinkle, Executors of the Estate of lda A. Sprinkle, deceased. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
P. T. Stiers, Reidsville, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Rufus W. Reynolds, Greensboro, for defendant-appellant.
Decisions of this Court hold that when a Judge of Superior Court hears a motion to set aside a judgment for mistake, surprise or excusable neglect, G.S. § 1-220, it is his duty, upon request so to do, to find the facts not only in respect to the grounds on which the motion is made, but as to meritorious defense. Failure to do so is error. Holcomb v. Holcomb, 192 N.C. 504, 135 S.E. 287; McLeod v. Gooch, 162 N.C. 122, 78 S.E. 4. See also Parnell v. Ivey, 213 N.C. 644, 197 S.E. 128.
The same rule would apply to hearing on motion to vacate an order for reason that it was made without notice. G.S. § 1-582.
Hence the court below erred in declining to find the facts in these respects,--having been requested so to do.
The cause will be remanded for further proceedings as to right and justice appertains, and as the law provides.
Error and remanded.
BARNHILL, C. J., and DEVIN, J., took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bell v. Martin
...motions, the trial judge must make findings of fact as to both the grounds asserted and as to a meritorious defense. Sprinkle v. Sprinkle, 241 N.C. 713, 86 S.E.2d 422 (1955). The trial court's findings are binding on appeal if supported by any competent evidence. Kirby v. Contracting Co., 1......
-
Texas Western Financial Corp. v. Mann
...neglect. Had it been requested to do so, it would have been error for the court not to have found the facts. Sprinkle v. Sprinkle, 241 N.C. 713, 86 S.E.2d 422 (1955). However, absent a request it was not required to do so. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a) (2), although it would have been better practi......
-
Vaglio v. Town and Campus Intern. Inc., A-1
...of fact. Had it been requested to do so, it would have been error for the court not to have found the facts. Sprinkle v. Sprinkle, 241 N.C. 713, 86 S.E.2d 422 (1955). However, absent a request it was not required to do so. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a)(2). The record in the present case does not di......
- Shingledecker v. Shingledecker