{ "id": 8625553, "name": "H. W. ANDERSON v. J. A. McRAE", "name_abbreviation": "Anderson v. McRae", "decision_date": "1937-01-27", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "197", "last_page": "199", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "211 N.C. 197" } ], "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": "23 S. E., 427", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "117 N. C., 515", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653579 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/117/0515-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 S. E., 743", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "174 N. C., 232", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11253313 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/174/0232-01" ] }, { "cite": "151 S. E., 635", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "198 N. C., 282", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8606358 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/198/0282-01" ] }, { "cite": "156 S. E., 484", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "200 N. C., 328", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621236 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/200/0328-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 N. C., 20", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8683839 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/70/0020-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 N. C., 194", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650707 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/94/0194-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 S. E., 840", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "109 N. C., 148", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8649621 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/109/0148-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 S. E., 795", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "175 N. C., 431", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659940 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/175/0431-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 S. E., 379", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "156 N. C., 345", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271407 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/156/0345-01" ] }, { "cite": "156 S. E., 795", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "200 N. C., 124", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8617080 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/200/0124-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 S. E., 701", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "208 N. C., 386", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8607327 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/208/0386-01" ] }, { "cite": "152 S. E., 493", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "198 N. C., 530", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8614004 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/198/0530-01" ] }, { "cite": "172 S. E., 217", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "170 S. E., 129", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "205 N. C., 85", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626840 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/205/0085-01" ] }, { "cite": "181 S. E., 248", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "208 N. C., 397", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8607837 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/208/0397-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 N. C., 472", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651345 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/94/0472-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 S. E., 593", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 N. C., 695", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658455 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/183/0695-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 S. E., 241", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 N. C., 649", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631244 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/195/0649-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 425, "char_count": 7204, "ocr_confidence": 0.475, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.276607071577503e-07, "percentile": 0.9418906276002964 }, "sha256": "32d64c22e729ded3ad25760281811259f819744c1d75c5f5dabde29de7636b3f", "simhash": "1:17a109d42016a634", "word_count": 1292 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:14.990140+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "H. W. ANDERSON v. J. A. McRAE." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, O. J.\nThe record states that \u201chis Honor did not . . . pass upon the exceptions,\u201d and in effect that he approved the factual findings of the referee, with two slight changes, because they were \u201csupported by the evidence.\u201d This is not in keeping with the usual practice in such cases.\nTrue, in a consent reference, upon exceptions duly filed, the judge of the Superior Court, in the exercise of his supervisory power and under the statute, 0. S., 578, may affirm, amend, modify, set aside, make additional findings, and confirm, in whole or in part, or disaffirm the report of a referee. Contracting Co. v. Power Co., 195 N. C., 649, 143 S. E., 241; S. v. Jackson, 183 N. C., 695, 110 S. E., 593; Vaughan v. Lewellyn, 94 N. C., 472. See, also, Maxwell, Comr., v. R. R., 208 N. C., 397, 181 S. E., 248; Corbett v. R. R., 205 N. C., 85, 170 S. E., 129; Wilson v. Allsbrook, ibid., 597, 172 S. E., 217. This he may do, however, only in passing upon the exceptions, for in the absence of exceptions to the factual findings of a referee, such findings are conclusive, Bank v. Graham, 198 N. C., 530, 152 S. E., 493, and where no exceptions are filed, the case is to be determined upon the facts as found by the referee. Salisbury v. Lyerly, 208 N. C., 386, 180 S. E., 701; Wallace v. Benner, 200 N. C., 124, 156 S. E., 795.\nNor is it accordant with precedent for the judge of the Superior Court, in considering exceptions to the factual findings of a referee, to approve such findings simply because they are supported by the evidence. Thompson v. Smith, 156 N. C., 345, 72 S. E., 379.\nSpeaking to the subject in Dumas v. Morrison, 175 N. C., 431, 95 S. E., 795, Walker, J., delivering the opinion of the Court and pointing out the difference between the duties of the trial court and the appellate court in dealing with exceptions to reports of referees, said:\n\u201cIt must be remembered that a judge of the Superior Court in reviewing a referee\u2019s report is not confined to the question whether there is any evidence to support bis findings of fact, but be may also decide that while there is some such evidence, it does not preponderate in favor of the plaintiff, and thus find the facts contrary to those reported by the referee. The rule is otherwise in this Court, when a referee\u2019s report is under consideration. \u00a5e do not review the judge\u2019s findings, if there is any evidence to support them, and do not pass upon the weight of the evidence.\u201d\nAgain in Thompson v. Smith, supra, the same learned justice said: \u201cWhen exceptions are taken to a referee\u2019s findings of fact and law, it is the duty of the judge to consider the evidence and give his own opinion and conclusion, both upon the facts and the law. He is not permitted to do this in a perfunctory way, but he must deliberate and decide as in other cases, use his own faculties in ascertaining the truth, and form his own judgment as to fact and law. This is required not only as a check upon the referee and a safeguard against any possible errors on his part, but because he cannot review the referee\u2019s findings in any other way.\u201d\nThe proper procedure in reference eases, relative to the questions here presented, was succinctly stated by Davis, J., in Miller v. Groome, 109 N. C., 148, 13 S. E., 840, as follows: \u201cThis was a reference under the Code, and the referee, as was his duty, reported the facts found and his conclusions of law separately, and he also reported the evidence upon which he found the facts, and, as a matter of right, either party could file exceptions, appeal, and have the report reviewed by the judge of the Superior Court, whose duty it is to consider the exceptions and set aside, modify, or confirm the report, according to his judgment, and his ruling upon the findings of fact is conclusive upon this Court, but his ruling upon questions of law are subject to review here. ... It was perfectly competent, upon review, if he so thought, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the referee, and then they would become the findings and conclusions of the court; but it was error in his Honor to summarily dispose of the exceptions by overruling them and confirming the report, without reviewing and passing upon them judicially.\u201d\nIt is perhaps needless to add that, in a consent reference, the parties waive the right to have the issues of fact determined by a jury. C. S., 572; Carr v. Askew, 94 N. C., 194; Green v. Castlebury, 70 N. C., 20. Hence, issues tendered on the exceptions in such a case may be treated as surplusage. The tender of issues is appropriate only in a compulsory reference when a jury trial is demanded. Cotton Mills v. Maslin, 200 N. C., 328, 156 S. E., 484; Booker v. Highlands, 198 N. C., 282, 151 S. E., 635; Robinson v. Johnson, 174 N. C., 232, 93 S. E., 743; Driller Co. v. Worth, 117 N. C., 515, 23 S. E., 427.\nThe judgment will be vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings accordant herewith.\nError and remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, O. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Sharp \u25a0& Sharp for plaintiff, appellant.", "D. F. Mayberry and Hunter X. Penn for defendant, appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "H. W. ANDERSON v. J. A. McRAE.\n(Filed 27 January, 1937.)\n1. Reference \u00a7 9 \u2014 Court must pass upon exceptions in consent reference and review the evidence relevant to the findings excepted to.\nIt is error for the court to refuse to pass upon exceptions to the report in a consent reference, or to approve the findings excepted to simply because they are supported by the evidence, the findings of the referee not being binding on the court even if supported by evidence, but it being the duty of the court to review the evidence and judicially determine the facts as established by the preponderance of the evidence, C. S., 578, and in passing upon the exceptions, he may affirm, amend, modify, set aside, make additional findings, and confirm, in whole or in part, or dis-affirm the report of the referee.\n2. Reference \u00a7 8\u2014\nIn the absence of exceptions to the factual findings of the referee, his findings are conclusive, and the case must be determined upon the facts found by him.\n3. Reference \u00a7\u00a7 4, 9\u2014\nBy consenting to a reference the parties waive the right to have issues of fact determined by a jury, C. S., 572, and the tender of issues on exceptions in a consent reference may be treated as surplusage.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Clement, J., at March Term, 1936, of EOCKINGHAM.\nCivil action for partnership accounting, by consent referred to Jule McMichael, Esq., to state the account and report the same to the court, together with his conclusions of law.\nUpon the coming in of the report, the plaintiff filed a number of exceptions thereto, and \u201cmoved the court to consider and pass upon the exceptions filed to the report of the referee. . . . This his Honor did not do. Plaintiff excepts.\u201d\nThe court modified the report in respect of two small items, and entered judgment:\n\u201cIt further appearing, with the exception of the two above items, that the finding of facts by the said referee, as set out in his report, was supported by the evidence; ... It is, therefore, adjudged . . .\nthat the said referee\u2019s report, except as herein above modified, be and the same is hereby approved and confirmed.\u201d\nPlaintiff appeals, assigning errors.\nSharp \u25a0& Sharp for plaintiff, appellant.\nD. F. Mayberry and Hunter X. Penn for defendant, appellee." }, "file_name": "0197-01", "first_page_order": 263, "last_page_order": 265 }