{
  "id": 11269283,
  "name": "B. T. STURTEVANT v. THE SELMA COTTON MILLS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sturtevant v. Selma Cotton Mills",
  "decision_date": "1916-03-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "119",
  "last_page": "120",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "171 N.C. 119"
    }
  ],
  "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": "103 N. C., 59",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8649119
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/103/0059-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 N. C., 370",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274104
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/86/0370-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 N. C., 317",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273384
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/107/0317-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 N. C., 406",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8693787
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/91/0406-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 N. C., 87",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657127
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/122/0087-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 N. C., 153",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650102
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/108/0153-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 271,
    "char_count": 4207,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.471,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.217178425088784e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8668683000437477
    },
    "sha256": "75268e3dd355f469a22fa6bbfa057b9a06698dbf11478828d960afe340ab53ea",
    "simhash": "1:79ec4755d01b08c6",
    "word_count": 706
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:52:28.143754+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "B. T. STURTEVANT v. THE SELMA COTTON MILLS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BeowN, J.\nThis action is brought to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract for the' purchase of certain machinery and appliances for use in defendant\u2019s factory to be manufactured by tbe defendant especially and according to specifications to fit tbe mill. Tbe contract contained these provisions: \u201cDelivery subject to delays beyond our control\u201d; also, \u201call to be delivered f. o. b. cars at our works, Readville, Mass. \"We to bave four weeks written notice of desired shipments.\u201d\nTbe cause was referred, and upon bearing plaintiff\u2019s exceptions to tbe report and findings of tbe referee, tbe court sustained them and rendered judgment as follows:\n\u201cAfter argument, it is considered and adjudged that tbe exceptions of tbe plaintiff are allowed, and tbe facts are found by tbe court accordingly, and tbe exceptions of tbe defendant are overruled; and tbe court finds that tbe time limit in tbe contract sued on was inserted for the iffaintiff\u2019s benefit, and that .it did not require plaintiff to deliver within four weeks notice; that the contract provided that the plaintiff should not be liable for delay beyond the plaintiff\u2019s control, and the delay in delivery was beyond plaintiff\u2019s control; that even if all this were not so, the defendant waived an earlier delivery, and the plaintiff under the circumstances delivered in reasonable time, and the defendant had no right to cancel the contract; that the defendant is indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $535, with interest on $267.50 from 7 January, 1905, and on $267.50 from 7 March, 1905. It is adjudged that the report of the referee be and is amended accordingly, and as so amended is in all respects confirmed.\n\u201cIt is, therefore, upon the motion of John W. Hinsdale, plaintiff\u2019s attorney, adjudged that the plaintiff above named do recover of the defendant above named the sum of $535 and interest on $267.50 from 7 January, 1905, and on $267.50 from 7 March, 1905. It is adjudged that the defendant recover nothing on its counterclaim.\u201d\n\u201cTo this judgment defendant excepts\u201d and appeals. This broadside exception is insufficient to bring up for review the findings of the judge. The alleged errors should be pointed out by specific exceptions as to findings of fact as well as law. Findings of fact by the judge are binding on us where supported by evidence, and when it is claimed that such finding is not supported by any evidence the exceptions and assignments of error should so specify. Such objection cannot be taken for the first time in this Court. Joyner v. Stancill, 108 N. C., 153; Hawkins v. Cedar Works, 122 N. C., 87.\nThe assignments of error that the court erred in sustaining the exceptions of plaintiff and in overruling those of defendant are entirely too general to fulfill the requirements of the rules of this Court. Usry v. Suit, 91 N. C., 406; Wadesboro v. Atkinson, 107 N. C., 317; Hanner v. McAdoo, 86 N. C., 370; Jordan v. Bryan, 103 N. C., 59; see cases collated in Revisal, pp. 253-4-5.\nThe judgment of his Honor is based upon his findings of fact and not upon those of the referee, and as those findings are presumed, in the absence of specific exception, to be supported by evidence, they are binding upon us. The judgment based upon those findings is corret.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BeowN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John W. Hinsdale for plcdntiff.",
      "F. H. Brooks, N. T. Gulley for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "B. T. STURTEVANT v. THE SELMA COTTON MILLS.\n(Filed 8 March, 1916.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 References\u2014Exceptions\u2014Findings\u2014Presumptions.\nWhere the trial judge sustained exceptions to a referee\u2019s report, made findings and thereon rendered the judgment appealed from, to which judgment the appellant excepted and assigned for error that the court sustained the exceptions, the exceptions thus taken are broadside and too indefinite to he considered on appeal, and it will he presumed that the findings of the judge were based upon sufficient evidence.\nAppeal by defendant from Bond> J., at April Term, 1916, of JOHNSTON.\nCivil action, beard upon exceptions to report of referee. Upon tbe bearing tbe judge allowed all of plaintiff\u2019s exceptions to tbe report, and found tbe facts himself and rendered judgment for plaintiff. Defendant excepted to tbe judgment and appealed.\nJohn W. Hinsdale for plcdntiff.\nF. H. Brooks, N. T. Gulley for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0119-01",
  "first_page_order": 171,
  "last_page_order": 172
}