#### JUNIUS D. GRIMES v. COUNTY OF BEAUFORT and L. A. SQUIRES, Sinking Fund Commissioner.

(Filed 23 September, 1942.)

Appeal and Error §§ 6d, 37e, 40a—

Where findings of fact by a referee, supported by competent evidence, are approved by tbe court below, judgment approving the referee’s conclusions of law will not be disturbed, no exception having been taken to the findings upon which the conclusions were based.

Appeal by defendants from Williams, J., at January Term, 1942, of Beaufort.

Affirmed.

This case was bere at Fall Term, 1940, and is reported in 218 N. C., 164, 10 S. E. (2d), 640, where tbe pertinent facts are stated. Tbe cause was referred. Exceptions to tbe report of tbe referee were filed by tbe defendants. TJpon tbe bearing in tbe court below, tbe referee’s findings of fact were in all material respects approved and adopted by tbe court, as were also tbe referee’s conclusions of law.

From judgment in favor of plaintiff upon tbe facts so found tbe defendants appealed.

Carter & Carter and Rodman & Rodman for plaintiff, appellee.

E. A. Daniel and P. W. McMullan for defendants, appellants.

Devin, J.

Tbe appellants assign as error in tbe judgment below tbe approval of tbe referee’s conclusion of law tbat plaintiff’s claim was not barred by tbe statute of limitations. There was, however, no exception to tbe referee’s findings of fact upon which this conclusion of law was based. These findings were supported by competent evidence, and were adopted in all material respects by tbe court. Hence, tbe judgment in favor of tbe plaintiff upon tbe facts so established must be upheld. Wilkinson v. Coppersmith, 218 N. C., 173, 10 S. E. (2d), 670.

Judgment affirmed.