{
  "id": 8657200,
  "name": "W. P. STEED v. DOVER LUMBER COMPANY et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Steed v. Dover Lumber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1921-06-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "508",
  "last_page": "509",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "181 N.C. 508"
    }
  ],
  "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": "156 N. C., 345",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271407
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/156/0345-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 N. C., 518",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656639
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/179/0518-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 N. C., 285",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273429
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/92/0285-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "162 N. C., 6",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269996
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/162/0006-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "177 N. C., 60",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653646
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/177/0060-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 216,
    "char_count": 2579,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.477,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2076626861257162
    },
    "sha256": "7d51a59e424fa34ccd1bda63a1df807c8dcf1123e7822346d39f889df2d46bdb",
    "simhash": "1:76f36957227404f1",
    "word_count": 432
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:46:48.388810+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. P. STEED v. DOVER LUMBER COMPANY et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee CubiaM.\nThe findings of fact of a referee, approved by tbe trial judge, are not subject to review upon appeal, if supported by any competent evidence. Dorsey v. Mining Co., 177 N. C., 60; Hudson v. Morton, 162 N. C., 6; Hunter v. Kelly, 92 N. C., 285. Likewise where the judge of the Superior Court, upon hearing and considering exceptions to a referee\u2019s report, makes different or additional findings of fact, they afford no ground for exception on appeal unless there is no sufficient evidence to support them, or error has been committed in receiving or rejecting testimony upon which they are based, or unless some other question of law is raised with respect to said findings. Caldwell v. Robinson, 179 N. C., 518; Thompson v. Smith, 156 N. C., 345.\nA careful examination of the record in the instant case discloses that a full and extended hearing was had before the referee, and that his Honor heard the exceptions to the referee\u2019s report evidently with laborious and painstaking care. It further appears that his findings and judgment are supported by the evidence. Hence, upon the record, we have discovered no sufficient cause for disturbing the result.\nThe controversy was largely one of fact, and no material benefit would be derived from discussing the exceptions seriatim. We find no reversible error. .\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee CubiaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. A. F. Seawall and Hoyle & Hoyle for plaintiff.",
      "Moore & Dunn, Langston, Allen & Taylor for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. P. STEED v. DOVER LUMBER COMPANY et al.\n(Filed 3 June, 1921.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Reference\u2014Findings\u2014Evidence.\nThe findings of fact by the referee, approved by the trial judge, or different or additional findings by the judge, are not reviewable on appeal, when there is sufficient evidence to support them.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Cormor, J., at December Term, 1919, of WayNE.\nCivil action to recover damages for an alleged breach of a logging and sawmilling contract. Defendants denied liability and set up, by way of further defense, counterclaims arising out of alleged breaches of the same and other contracts by the plaintiff.\nBy consent, the case was referred to a referee under the statute, to hear the evidence and report his findings of fact and conclusions of law.\nUpon the .coming in of the referee\u2019s report, exceptions thereto were filed by both sides which were heard by the trial judge, and judgment upon the report, as amended, was entered for the defendants and against the plaintiff. This appeal, on behalf of the plaintiff, seeks a review and reversal of the judgment of the Superior Court, errors having been assigned.\nA. A. F. Seawall and Hoyle & Hoyle for plaintiff.\nMoore & Dunn, Langston, Allen & Taylor for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0508-01",
  "first_page_order": 560,
  "last_page_order": 561
}