{
  "id": 8553786,
  "name": "JAMES SALEM v. NYAL FLOWERS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Salem v. Flowers",
  "decision_date": "1975-07-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 753DC93",
  "first_page": "504",
  "last_page": "506",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "26 N.C. App. 504"
    }
  ],
  "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": "58 S.E. 2d 351",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 N.C. 577",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631162
      ],
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/231/0577-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 S.E. 2d 242",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "242 N.C. 636",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621159
      ],
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/242/0636-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 271,
    "char_count": 4737,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.586,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.5969733779201943e-07,
      "percentile": 0.819147950324517
    },
    "sha256": "5621c46bcb6b7f950d70a5de9703c7905b3d2ae5a4b5cf043e72dde4a028176c",
    "simhash": "1:f5bda075da100521",
    "word_count": 813
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:59:13.418266+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Arnold concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JAMES SALEM v. NYAL FLOWERS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nAppellant noted ten assignments of error. In his brief he expressly waived argument in support of Assignment of Error No. 5, and that assignment is abandoned. Assignments of Error 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 all relate to the court\u2019s rulings admitting evidence. These assignments of error are overruled. \u201cIn a trial before the judge, sitting without a jury, \u2018the ordinary rules' as to the competency of evidence applied in a trial before a jury are to some extent relaxed, for the reason that the judge with knowledge of the law is able to eliminate from the testimony he hears that which is immaterial and incompetent*, and consider that only which tends properly to prove the facts to be found.\u2019 \u201d 1 Stansbury\u2019s N. C. Evidence (Brandis Revision) \u00a7 4a, p. 10. Moreover, in order to present for appellate review exceptions relating to admissions of evidence made by the court in a non jury case, it is also necessary that proper exceptions be made to the findings of fact, Merrell v. Jenkins, 242 N.C. 636, 89 S.E. 2d 242 (1955) ; Burnsville v. Boone, 231 N.C. 577, 58 S.E. 2d 351 (1950), and. appellant here has failed to note a single exception to any of the court\u2019s findings of fact.\nAssignment of Error No. 6 relates to the court\u2019s action sustaining plaintiff\u2019s objection to defendant\u2019s testimony explaining the reasons for defendant\u2019s delay \u201cin discovering the defect in the motor.\u201d Finding of Fact No. 8 in the judgment appealed from is as follows:\n\u201c8. That on the date that the defendant took possession of the engine, it was in good working order and complied with any express or implied warranty that the plaintiff may had [sic] made.\u201d\nDefendant has not shown how he was prejudiced by the court\u2019s exclusion of evidence, the only purpose of which was to explain his delay in discovering a defect in the motor which the court, on competent evidence, found did not exist. This assignment of error is overruled.\nAssignment of Error No. 4 is directed to the court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s motions for involuntary dismissal made at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence and renewed at the close of all of the evidence. Because of appellant\u2019s failure to note exception to any of the court\u2019s findings of fact, appellant\u2019s assignment of error presents nothing for our review. Bwrnsville v. B\u00f3one, supra.\nThe appeal is itself an exception to the judgment, 1 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Appeal and Error, \u00a7 26, but absent an exception to any of the court\u2019s findings of fact, our review is h'mited to the question of whether the facts found support the conclusions of law and whether these support the judgment. Here, the court\u2019s findings of fact fully support the conclusions of law and these support the judgment rendered. We find no error in appellant\u2019s remaining assignments of error.\nThe judgment appealed from is\nAffirmed.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Arnold concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert G. Bowers for plaintiff appellee.",
      "McCotter & Mayo by Hiram, J. Mayo, Jr. for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JAMES SALEM v. NYAL FLOWERS\nNo. 753DC93\n(Filed 2 July 1975)\n1. Trial \u00a7 57\u2014 nonjury trial \u2014 rules of evidence\nThe ordinary rules as to the competency of evidence in a jury trial are to some extent relaxed in a trial before the court without a jury.\n2. Appeal and Error \u00a7 28\u2014 exceptions to admission of evidence \u2014 necessity for exceptions to findings\nIn order to present for appellate review exceptions relating to admissions of evidence made by the court in a nonjury case, proper exceptions must be made to the findings of fact.\n3. Appeal and Error \u00a7 49\u2014 exclusion of evidence \u2014 harmless error\nIn an action to recover the balance of the purchase price of a boat hull and motor, defendant was not prejudiced by the court\u2019s ex-elusion of defendant\u2019s testimony explaining his delay in discovering a defect in the motor where the court, on competent evidence, found that such a defect did not exist.\n4. Appeal and Error \u00a7 57\u2014 absence of exceptions to findings \u2014 appellate review\nThe appeal itself is an exception to the judgment, but absent an exception to any of the court\u2019s findings of fact, review is limited to the question of whether the facts found support the conclusions of law and whether these support the judgment.\nAppeal by defendant from Whedbee, Judge. Judgment entered 5 December 1974 in District Court, Craven County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 April 1975.\n' This is a civil action to recover $500.00 balance of purchase price of a boat hull and motor sold by plaintiff to defendant. The case was tried before the court sitting without a jury. At the conclusion of all of the evidence the court entered judgment making findings of fact, stating its conclusions of law, and adjudging that plaintiff recover the sum of $500.00 with interest and costs.\nRobert G. Bowers for plaintiff appellee.\nMcCotter & Mayo by Hiram, J. Mayo, Jr. for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0504-01",
  "first_page_order": 532,
  "last_page_order": 534
}