{ "id": 8552312, "name": "WILLIAM O. TROTTER T/A TROTTER ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. GENE W. HEWITT and wife, JANE A. HEWITT", "name_abbreviation": "Trotter v. Hewitt", "decision_date": "1973-08-22", "docket_number": "No. 7310DC474", "first_page": "253", "last_page": "255", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "19 N.C. App. 253" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "188 S.E. 2d 604", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "14 N.C. App. 436", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550042 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/14/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "184 S.E. 2d 417", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "12 N.C. App. 626", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8551812 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/12/0626-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 358, "char_count": 5915, "ocr_confidence": 0.544, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.235521647835004e-07, "percentile": 0.9574056248066972 }, "sha256": "ce18ca30dce053c141f5f168e4c1b38a5cb11f9b7c302a6b2e728d1787e2b24c", "simhash": "1:f1bf2cce24770d71", "word_count": 952 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:34.966448+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Vaughn and Baley concur." ], "parties": [ "WILLIAM O. TROTTER T/A TROTTER ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. GENE W. HEWITT and wife, JANE A. HEWITT" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BROCK, Chief Judge.\nPlaintiff excepts to most of the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the trial court\u2019s judgment. The court\u2019s findings of fact are conclusive if supported by any competent evidence, and judgment supported by such findings will be affirmed, even though there is evidence to the contrary. Brooks v. Brooks, 12 N.C. App. 626, 184 S.E. 2d 417. Findings of fact made by the court which resolve conflicts in the evidence are binding on appellate courts. Lane v. Honeycutt, 14 N.C. App. 436, 188 S.E. 2d 604. After a scrutiny of the record, we find that the trial court\u2019s findings of fact are supported by competent evidence and that the conclusions of law in the judgment are supported by the findings of fact.\nPlaintiff also contends that the trial judge failed to find facts specially in that he failed to find all the facts involved in this action. In our view this contention is without merit. Rule 52(a) of our Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part: \u201cIn all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon. . . .\u201d \u201cThe Rule does not place a severe burden upon the trial judge, for he \u2018need only-make brief, definite, pertinent findings and conclusions upon the contested matters\u2019 . . .\u201d 5A, Moore, Federal Practice Par. 52.06 (2nd ed. 1948), p. 2705. \u201cAnd the court need not find on every issue requested, but a finding of such essential facts as lay a basis for the decision is sufficient.\u201d Id., at Par. 52.06 [1], p. 2713. The plaintiff argues for more specificity than is required.\nPlaintiff also contends that some of the findings of fact are actually conclusions of law. In particular, plaintiff argues in his brief that the finding of fact that plaintiff contracted with defendants on 6 April 1972 to do certain electrical work is a conclusion of law. The parties stipulated at pretrial conference that a contract was entered into between plaintiff and defendants on 6 April 1972. Assuming that this finding of fact should be labeled a conclusion of law, plaintiff has suffered no prejudice. We hold that the trial court made sufficient findings of fact and separately stated his conclusions of law so as to comply with Rule 52 and afford proper appellate review. These assignments of error are overruled.\nPlaintiff excepts to the allowance of certain testimony by employees of defendant, who worked in the building in question, as to difficulties with the electrical system. These witnesses testified to problems with the electrical system observed from their everyday use. Their testimony concerned defects they had encountered in their use of the electrical system, e.g., if foot heater and photocopy machine were on at same time, the circuit would blow and lights go out. This testimony was properly allowed. These assignments of error are without merit.\nWe have carefully examined plaintiff\u2019s other assignments of error and find them to be without merit.\nNo error.\nJudges Vaughn and Baley concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "BROCK, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Thompson & Lynn, by Dan Lynn, for plaintiff.", "Reynolds, Farmer & Russell, by E. Cader Howard, for defendants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "WILLIAM O. TROTTER T/A TROTTER ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. GENE W. HEWITT and wife, JANE A. HEWITT\nNo. 7310DC474\n(Filed 22 August 1973)\n1. Rules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 52; Trial \u00a7 58\u2014 sufficiency of findings \u2014 separate statement of conclusions\nIn this action to recover for materials and labor furnished in the performance of electrical work wherein defendants counterclaimed for an amount allegedly necessary to complete and correct plaintiff\u2019s faulty work, the trial court made sufficient findings of fact and separately stated his conclusions of law so as to comply with G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52 and afford proper appellate review.\n2. Evidence \u00a7 40\u2014 installation of electrical system\u2014 counterclaim for faulty work \u2014 testimony as to difficulties with system \u2014 nonexpert witness\nIn this action to recover for materials and labor furnished in the performance of electrical work on defendants\u2019 building wherein defendants counterclaimed for an amount allegedly necessary to complete and correct plaintiff\u2019s faulty work, the trial court did not err in the admission of testimony by employees of defendant as to defects they had encountered in their use of the electrical system installed by plaintiff.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Barnette, District Court Judge, 29 January 1973 Session of District Court held in Wake County.\nPlaintiff instituted this action to recover $2,946 alleged to be due from defendant pursuant to an oral contract in which plaintiff furnished materials and labor in performing certain electrical work on a house owned by defendants located at 111 Brooks Avenue, Baleigh, N. C. Both parties admit the existence of an oral contract in which plaintiff agreed to perform certain electrical work for defendants at a price of $1190. Both parties also admit that the original oral contract was subsequently modified. However, neither party agrees on any of the other terms of the original contract or the modified contract.\nThe parties stipulated at pretrial conference that defendants had paid $1200 to plaintiff for work performed and that defendants were entitled to a credit of $319 for twelve lighting fixtures purchased by defendants and delivered to plaintiff for installation. The parties also stipulated as to what the contested issues were.\nDefendants counterclaimed against plaintiff for $2000 which was the amount alleged to be necessary to complete and correct the faulty and unworkmanlike electrical work alleged to have been performed by plaintiff.\nThe court, sitting without a jury, made findings of fact and conclusions of law. It concluded that defendants were entitled to recover $1000 from plaintiff as damages for defects caused by plaintiff\u2019s faulty workmanship, less $120 due plaintiff by defendant. Plaintiff appealed.\nThompson & Lynn, by Dan Lynn, for plaintiff.\nReynolds, Farmer & Russell, by E. Cader Howard, for defendants." }, "file_name": "0253-01", "first_page_order": 277, "last_page_order": 279 }