Tilley v. Bivens
| Decision Date | 12 April 1892 |
| Citation | 14 S.E. 920,110 N.C. 343 |
| Parties | TILLEY v. BIVENS. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Durham county; E. T. BOYKIN, Judge.
Proceeding by Marcus Tilley, administrator, against M. C. Bivens and others to obtain a license to sell the real estate of his testatrix. From the judgment defendants appeal. Affirmed.
The other facts fully appear in the following statement by MERRIMON, C.J.:
This is a special proceeding, brought by the plaintiff, administrator with the will annexed, to obtain a license to sell the real estate of his testatrix to make assets to pay debts, etc. The defendants denied that the estate was chargeable with debts as alleged, and denied that there was necessity for sale of the land, etc. By consent of parties there was an order of reference to take and state an account, etc. The referee took evidence at great length, found the facts, and made report to which the defendants filed divers exceptions. The court adopted the findings of fact, overruled all the exceptions both to the findings of fact and law, and granted the license to sell the land, etc., and the defendants appealed to this court.
An objection to the admission or exclusion of evidence must state the grounds of the objection.
J. S Manning and Boone & Parker, for appellant.
Fuller & Fuller, for appellee.
MERRIMON C.J., (after stating the facts.)
It appears that there were 175 "objections" to evidence before the referee, most of which seem to have been merely captions. There is no assignment of error, nor does the "objection" suggest the ground of it. Mere objection does not serve the purpose of an exception, and the latter, when made, must specify in terms or by intelligent implication what the ground of it is; otherwise it must go for naught. This is required by the statute as well as the settled practice of this court. Code, § 412, par. 2; Suit v. Suit, 78 N.C. 272; Cooper v. Middleton, 94 N.C. 86; Battle v. Mayo, 102 N.C. 413, 9 S.E. Rep. 384; Joyner v. Stancill, 108 N.C. 153, 12 S.E. Rep. 912.
There are divers exceptions to the report of the referee. Most of these relate to findings of fact. The court approved and adopted these findings as its own, and, as there was evidence from which they might be made, we cannot review them. This is settled by many decisions.
There were exceptions based upon the ground that the referee had failed to find certain facts. This was not ground...
To continue reading
Request your trial