Ramsey v. Nebel

It is questionable whether the broadside nature of defendants exception to the "rulings of the court as appears in the judgment signed by the court, and the signing thereof," even as somewhat expanded in the assignment of error, serves to bring before us, on this review, more than the form of the judgment to which objection is made. The exceptions do not point out any specific defect in the "rulings" or findings which might engage special attention of this Court -- whether not supported by evidence, or in some particular beyond the power of the court, or otherwise legally objectionable. But treating the exceptions with the greatest liberality in this respect, we do not find them meritorious. Findings of fact by the referee to which no exception was made by defendants, and which were confirmed by the judge without alteration or substitution, including the location of the true line, want of coverage of the lands by defendants deed, the date which the first occupancy by defendants began, array the deciding factors against the defendants and are sufficient to support the conclusions of law made by the court upon review. Whether material to this decision or otherwise, other findings of fact, differing from those found by the referee, were not without evidence to support them. In reviewing the referees report, the judge acted within the scope of his powers under the statute, and within the rules laid down for its observance. G.S., 1-194; Williamson v. Spivey, 224 N.C. 311, 30 S.E.2d 46; Thigpen v. Trust Co., 203 N.C. 291, 293, 165 S.E., 714; Trust Co. v. Lentz, 196 N.C. 398, 406, 145 S.E., 787; Thompson v. Smith, 156 N.C. 345, 347, 72 S.E., 379.