{
  "id": 8621622,
  "name": "HARDY v. THORNTON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hardy v. Thornton",
  "decision_date": "1926-10-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "296",
  "last_page": "297",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "192 N.C. 296"
    }
  ],
  "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": "177 N. C., 60",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653646
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/177/0060-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 N. C., 518",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656639
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/179/0518-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 N. C., 431",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659940
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/175/0431-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 N. C., 345",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271407
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/156/0345-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 N. C., 148",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8649621
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/109/0148-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 210,
    "char_count": 2762,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.456,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.998765029887039e-08,
      "percentile": 0.422953230091793
    },
    "sha256": "829d1ad9c095d69ed61380c315596e651340b89d22f6b6e63e1cd648546ad79e",
    "simhash": "1:73beb94616dd4c70",
    "word_count": 474
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:38.190415+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HARDY v. THORNTON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nTbe court ordered a compulsory reference under C. S., 573, because tbe controversy involved tbe \u201cexamination of a long account on either side.\u201d Tbe exceptions to tbe compulsory reference were withdrawn. It is established law in this State that a finding of fact by a Superior Court judge on exceptions to a referee\u2019s report is not reviewable in tbe Supreme Court if there is evidence to support such finding by tbe trial judge. Miller v. Groome, 109 N. C., 148; Thompson v. Smith, 156 N. C., 345; Dumas v. Morrison, 175 N. C., 431; Caldwell v. Robinson, 179 N. C., 518.\nIn this case the findings of fact are all supported by evidence, and have been approved by the trial judge. Hence, such findings are not reviewable in this Court. Dorsey v. Mining Co., 177 N. C., 60.\nThe record is voluminous and many exceptions were taken to the evidence and the charge of the court. Each of the exceptions has been examined and considered, but the Court is of the opinion that the case was properly tried and in accordance with well-settled principles of law.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John G. Anderson, Sutton & Greene for plaintiff.",
      "Shaw, J ones & J ones for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HARDY v. THORNTON.\n(Filed 13 October, 1926.)\nReference \u2014 Findings\u2014Appeal and Error.\nTbe findings of fact by tbe trial judge upon tbe report of a referee supported by competent evidence, are not reviewable on appeal.\nCivil ACTION tried before Nunn, J., and a -jury, at February Term, 1926, of GeeeNe. \u25a0\nPlaintiff, landlord, instituted a suit against tbe defendant, bis tenant, to recover balance due on a running account for tbe years 1919, 1920, and 1921. A claim and delivery was instituted at tbe beginning of tbe suit, and tbe 1921 crop of defendant seized thereunder. Tbe crop was afterwards sold. Tbe defendant denied tbe indebtedness, and further, that plaintiff bad any lien on tbe 1921 crop for tbe payment of advances for tbe preceding years. At tbe December Term, 1924, a compulsory reference was ordered and Hon. G. Y. Cooper appointed referee by Judge G. E. Midyette. Thereafter, tbe referee, after bearing tbe evidence and argument of counsel, filed a report which embodied findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by statute. Both sides filed exceptions to tbe referee\u2019s report, and tbe cause came on for a regular bearing before Nunn, J., at tbe February Term, 1926, who beard tbe exceptions of tbe parties, and, after submitting certain issues to tbe jury, entered judgment that \u201ctbe report of tbe referee, except as tbe same is modified by tbe aforesaid findings of tbe jury, and as further modified by this judgment, be, and tbe same is in all respects approved and confirmed.\u201d\nTbe jury found in favor of tbe plaintiff, and from judgment on tbe verdict tbe defendant appealed.\nJohn G. Anderson, Sutton & Greene for plaintiff.\nShaw, J ones & J ones for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0296-01",
  "first_page_order": 370,
  "last_page_order": 371
}