Court Opinion

ID: 3646555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 06:02:34.483292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:16.662728
License: Public Domain

The first exception of the defendant is to the refusal of the court to overrule a finding of fact made by the referee. *Page 398 
The exception is not based upon the ground that there was no evidence to support the finding, but that there was no competent evidence, and a proper consideration of it would require us to go through the entire record, and pass on the admissibility of evidence, when there is no assignment of error that incompetent evidence had been admitted.
This we are not required to do. If the appellant desired to preserve the exception, it was his duty to enter his exception to the evidence before the referee, and to except also to the finding of fact, and to have both exceptions reviewed by the judge, and then on appeal to embrace in his assignments of error the exceptions to the evidence.
We find, however, on an examination of the evidence of the plaintiff, that he testified to facts justifying the finding, and the rule is (494) well settled that we cannot review the action of the judge when there is any evidence.
It was the duty of the judge to submit the issues to the jury, upon demand of the plaintiff, as he had not waived his right to a jury trial, and the exception of the defendant to such action cannot be sustained.
The fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh assignments of error are to rulings within the discretion of the judge; and the eighth assignment is formal for the purpose of preserving the other exceptions.
The third assignment would not be free from difficulty if it had not been held that the claim of the plaintiff for advances made to the firm was barred by the statute of limitations; but with this decision in favor of the defendant, he cannot complain that he was not allowed to offer evidence in addition to that introduced before the referee on the claim.
The general rule is, undoubtedly, as his Honor held, that upon the coming in of a report, under a compulsory reference, the issues are to be determined by the jury on the evidence before the referee; but if an amendment is allowed, after the report is filed, containing an additional charge, the parties ought to be allowed to offer evidence as to such charge, because it was not embraced in the reference.
The defendant has not, however, suffered any injury by the refusal to allow him to introduce the evidence, as there is no recovery against him on the additional matter contained in the amendment.
We find no error of which the defendant can complain.
No error.
Cited: Makely v. Montgomery, 158 N.C. 590. *Page 399