Thompson v. Thompson
| Citation | 70 S.E.2d 495,235 N.C. 416 |
| Decision Date | 16 April 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 377,377 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Parties | THOMPSON, v. THOMPSON et ux. |
Sam W. Miller, Asheboro, for defendants-appellants.
Prevette & Coltrane, Asheboro, for plaintiff-appellee.
The agreed statement of case on appeal indicates that the defendants in challenging the proceedings below assigned five errors. Of these, however, only two are brought forward on brief. Therefore, the other three assignments of error, in support of which no argument is stated or authority cited, will be taken as abandoned. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N.C. 562 et seq.; Rose v. Bank of Wadesboro, 217 N.C. 600, 9 S.E.2d 2; Dillingham v. Kligerman, 235 N.C. 298, 69 S.E.2d 500.
The remaining assignments, 2 and 5, will be stated and discussed in that order:
Assignment of Error No. 2.--Here the defendant assigns as error 'that his Honor confirmed the report of the Commissioners notwithstanding the fact that the Commissioners failed to follow the orders contained in the consent judgment of Honorable Susie Sharp heretofore referred to, and the supplemental judgment of Honorable F. Donald Phillips when he appointed new commissioners in place of the ones who had resigned.'
This assignment of error is supported by no specific exception--the only exception in the record being the general exception to the order as set out in the appeal entries. It thus appears that the assignment of error is fatally defective in failing to point out in what particular 'the Commissioners failed to follow the orders' directing partition of the land. Hence, the assignment, like the exception appearing in the appeal entries, is broadside. Vestal v. Moseley Vending Machine Exchange, 219 N.C. 468, 14 S.E.2d 427. It is elementary that if a litigant would invoke the right of review, he must point out specifically and distinctly the alleged error. Weaver v. Morgan, 232 N.C. 642, 61 S.E.2d 916. At most, then, this assignment presents only the question whether error of law appears on the face of the record. Weaver v. Morgan, supra; Town of Burnsville v. Boone, 231 N.C. 577, 58 S.E.2d 351. See also State v. Williams, N.C., 70 S.E.2d 1. Here, the defendants urge that the report of the commissioners fails to show specifically that they took into consideration the value of the chicken house erected by the defendant Wesley Thompson on the share allotted to the plaintiff as directed in the judgment of partition. Nothing else appearing, this might be treated as error appearing on the face of the record. However, it further appears on the record that at the hearing below one of the commissioners, testifying as a witness for the defendants, said 'we considered the value of the chicken...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Birchfield, 3
-
Worsley v. S. & W. Rendering Co.
...N.C. 651, 46 S.E.2d 829; State v. Dilliard, 223 N.C. 446, 27 S.E.2d 85; Powell v. Daniel, 236 N.C. 489, 73 S.E. 2d 143; Thompson v. Thompson, 235 N. C. 416, 70 S.E.2d 495; Weaver v. Morgan, 232 N.C. 642, 61 S.E.2d 916; Town of Burnsville v. Boone, 231 N.C. 577, 58 S.E. 2d The Supreme Court ......
-
Childress v. Johnson Motor Lines
...to support the order. Weaver v. Morgan, 232 N.C. 642, 61 S.E.2d 916; Burnsville v. Boone, 231 N.C. 577, 58 S.E.2d 351; Thompson v. Thompson, 235 N.C. 416, 70 S.E.2d 495. It follows then that since the order is supported by the findings, the order of injunction will be upheld. The case of Ev......
-
Housing Authority of City of Salisbury, Project NC-16-2, In re
...instant challenge, being unsupported by an exception, may not be asserted successfully for the first time on appeal. Thompson v. Thompson, 235 N.C. 416, 70 S.E.2d 495. An appeal ex necessitate follows the theory of the trial. Wilson v. Hood, 208 N.C. 200, 179 S.E. 660. It has been said that......