{
  "id": 8658168,
  "name": "SOUTHERN SPRUCE COMPANY v. A. H. HAYES and J. J. ENLOE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Southern Spruce Co. v. Hayes",
  "decision_date": "1915-05-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "254",
  "last_page": "255",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "169 N.C. 254"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "163 N. C., 63",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 240,
    "char_count": 3480,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.458,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1505594789849316e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5812948940266401
    },
    "sha256": "fa5d80b8b907cd79eb01079b0ef7763e80c6491f2b799a00275aad5b73d29b79",
    "simhash": "1:9339efc4a272a549",
    "word_count": 595
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:16:09.233721+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SOUTHERN SPRUCE COMPANY v. A. H. HAYES and J. J. ENLOE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nIt was very earnestly contended upon the argument that the learned judge did not review the findings of fact made by the referee, but adopted them pro forma without examination. \"We find nothing in the record to justify such contention. The judge of the Superior Court is not obliged to write out his reasons for adopting the findings of fact made by a referee.\nIn this case the fourteen findings of fact seem to have been considered by the judge and affirmed and adopted by him seriatim. The ten conclusions of law reached by the referee are also specifically numbered and affirmed by the judge. This case involves purely questions of fact, and the facts being found, the conclusions of law naturally follow.\nThe main contention was as to the location of a maple corner, represented on the official map by the black figure \u201c6\u201d and the red figure \u201c6\u201d; the plaintiff contending that it was correctly located at the black figure \u201c6\u201d and the defendants contending that it was located at the red figure \u201c6,\u201d which last place was designated on the map as the maple at the Broom place. The referee found the facts as contended for by the defendants, and there is abundant evidence to sustain such findings.\nAs said in another case, McCullers v. Cheatham, 163 N. C., 63: \u201cTbe misfortune of tbe defendants (tbe plaintiff in tbe case at bar) in tbis case is tbat tbe referee bas found all tbe essential facts against tbem, and wben these findings were reviewed and approved by tbe judge, upon consideration of tbe report and exceptions, there being evidence to warrant tbem, we are precluded from changing tbe report in tbis respect, but must decide tbe case upon tbe findings of fact as made by tbe referee and approved by tbe court. ... We will not review tbe referee\u2019s findings of fact, which are settled, upon a consideration of tbe evidence, and approved by tbe judge, when exceptions are filed.thereto, if there is some evidence to support tbem.\u201d\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Luclty & Andrews, Frye, Q-antt & Frye for plaintiff.",
      "Felix E. Alley, Thurman Leatherwood, Morgan & Ward for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SOUTHERN SPRUCE COMPANY v. A. H. HAYES and J. J. ENLOE.\n(Filed 24 May, 1915.)\nReference \u2014 Report\u2014Confirmation by Court \u2014 Pro Forma \u2014 Appeal and Error.\nWhere the referee\u2019s -findings of fact are supported by evidence and approved by the court, they are not reviewable on appeal; and where it appears that the court refers seriatim to the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the referee and adopts them, it is not open to objection that he has done so pro forma, for he is not required to state his reasons therefor.\nAppeai, by plaintiff from judgment rendered by Justice, J., at chambers, 30 December, 1914; from Swai\u00edt.\nAction of trespass for damages for the wrongful cutting of timber upon certain lands described in the pleadings. The defendants not only denied the plaintiff\u2019s title, but pleaded a counterclaim for damages sustained by them by reason of the wrongful issuing of an injunction. The cause was pending in the Superior Court of Swain County and at March Term, 1914, was referred to a referee by consent. The referee made his report and the plaintiff filed exceptions. These exceptions were heard by Justice, J., at chambers, 30 December, 1914, who confirmed the report of the referee and entered judgment in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff for the sum of $500 damages and the costs of the action, including the fees of the stenographer. The plaintiff appealed.\nLuclty & Andrews, Frye, Q-antt & Frye for plaintiff.\nFelix E. Alley, Thurman Leatherwood, Morgan & Ward for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0254-01",
  "first_page_order": 306,
  "last_page_order": 307
}