Holcomb v. . Holcomb
Cases that cite this one
25 later published cases cite this decision.
- Barringer v. FORSYTH COUNTY WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY BAPTIST MEDICAL CTR (N.C. Ct. App. 2009)
- Moore v. Deal (N.C. 1954)
- Sutherland v. McLean (N.C. 1930)
- Haiduven v. Cooper (N.C. Ct. App. 1974)
- Dunn v. . Wilson (N.C. 1936)
- Kolendo v. Kolendo (N.C. Ct. App. 1978)
- Commercial Union Assurance Companies v. Atwater Motor Co. (N.C. Ct. App. 1978)
- Williams v. Bray (N.C. 1968)
- Langley v. Langley (N.C. 1966)
- Greitzer v. Eastham (N.C. 1961)
- Melton v. Hill (N.C. 1959)
- J. A. Jones Construction Co. v. Local Union 755 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (N.C. 1957)
- Morris v. Wilkins (N.C. 1955)
- Sprinkle v. Sprinkle (N.C. 1955)
- State Distributing Corp. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. (N.C. 1944)
- Clayton Banking Co. v. Farmers Bank (N.C. 1937)
- Cayton v. . Clark (N.C. 1937)
- Sutherland v. . McLean (N.C. 1930)
- McCune v. Rhodes-Rhyne Manufacturing Co. (N.C. 1940)
- Wood v. . Woodbury Pace, Inc. (N.C. 1940)
- Wood v. Woodbury & Pace, Inc. (N.C. 1940)
- State v. . Dalton (N.C. 1934)
- Venn v. . Coleman (N.C. 1934)
- State v. . Harris (N.C. 1933)
- Rutledge v. . Fitzgerald (N.C. 1929)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
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.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.