Court Opinion

ID: 9807674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:12:32.510025+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:50:48.442987
License: Public Domain

Clark, J.,
concurring in result : On a motion to set aside a judgment for excusable neglect, the findings of fact by the Judge are conclusive and this Court cannot look into the affidavits to review his findings (Weil v. Woodard, 104 N. C , 94; Albertson v. Terry, 108 N. C., 75; Sykes v. Weatherly, 110 N. C., 231) and indeed they are no part of the record proper and should not be sent up.
Whether, upon the findings of fact, there was excusable or inexcusable negligence is a matter of law and always re viewable at the instance of either party. Win-*670borne v, Johnston, 95 N. C., 46; Weil v. Woodard, supra; Clark’s Code (2nd Ed.) pp. 230, 231, 232, 233. If upon such findings of fact the negligence was inexcusable, the court below had no power to set the judgment aside.
If there was, upon such findings, excusable negligence, then the Judge in his discretion can set aside or refuse to set aside the judgment, and the exercise of such discretion is irreviewable at the instance of either party, (Manning v. Railroad, 122 N. C., 824; Stith v. Jones, 119 N. C., 428; Sykes v. Weatherly, and Winborne v. Johnson, supra, and cases thei’e cited) except possibly for a gross abuse of discretion (Wyche v. Ross, 119 N. C., 174), which does not appeal- in this case.
There was no omission to find material facts, as in Smith v. Hahn, 80 N. C., 241, for his Honor says the facts found are ‘‘the only facts sufficiently established by the parties” and the credit a Judge gives to the testimony of witnesses cannot be supervised by an appellate court. But while we cannot look into the affidavits to review the findings of fact, we see that his Honor found that there was “no bond filed as was required, it being an ejectment suit,” when from the record proper it appears that the action was not an ejectment suit, but for foreclosure and no bond was required.
The Judge below evidently found that this was a case of excusable neglect (as he refuses the motion in the exercise of his discretion), and as the plaintiff does not appeal, that finding stands. But it is impossible to see how far the exercise of his discretion was influenced by the erroneous opinion the Judge expressed as to the nature of the action and the necessity of filing a bond. I think the case should be remanded that the Judge below exercise his discretion upon the facts already found.