Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

192 N.C. 504

135 S.E 287

Holcomb v. . Holcomb

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 10, 1926

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1926-11-10

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1926-11-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently June 2009

13 state decisions

50192619301940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Stacy, C. J.

¶1 This is an appeal from a refusal to set 'aside a judgment by default final on the ground of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect,” under C. S., 600. The judge, not being requested to do so, found no facts upon which he based his ruling. Carter v. Rountree, 109 N. C., 29. In the absence of such finding, it is presumed that the judge, upon proper evidence, found facts sufficient to support his judgment. McLeod v. Gooch, 162 N. C., 122. Hence, there is nothing for us to review. Osborn v. Leach, 133 N. C., 428. “We do not consider affidavits for the purpose of finding facts ourselves in motions of this sort.” Gardiner v. May, 172 N. C., 192. It would have been error for the judge not to have found the facts, had he been requested to do so. McLeod v. Gooch, supra. But he is not required to make such finding in the absence of a request by some of the parties. Lumber Co. v. Buhmann, 160 N. C., 385. See Norton v. McLaurin, 125 N. C., 185, for full discussion of the subject.

¶2 Affirmed.

/192/nc/504 · .json · Public domain