Legal Opinion

Rutledge v. . Fitzgerald

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 1, 1929PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

The defendant did not request the court below to find the facts upon which the rulings of the court below were based. In the absence of such finding, it is presumed that the court below, upon proper evidence, found facts sufficient to support the judgment. The whole matter is fully discussed and decisions cited in Holcomb v. Holcomb, 192 N. C., 504; Helderman v. Mills Co., 192 N. C., 626. See Lumber Co. v. Anderson, 196 N. C., 474; Realty Corp. v. Fisher, 196 N. C., 503; Coach Co. v. Griffin, 196 N. C., 559. The judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Holcomb v. . HolcombSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  2. Helderman v. Hartsell Mills Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  3. Camel City Coach Co. v. GriffinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
  4. Œttinger Lumber Co. v. W. I. Anderson & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1929

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. McCune v. Rhodes-Rhyne Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  2. Clayton Banking Co. v. Farmers BankSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  3. Powell v. . Bladen CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934