On the question of laches to bar a recovery in actions of this kind, the following observation is made, citing numerous authorities, in Chamberlain v. Trogden, 148 N. C., at p. 141: “All the authorities, however, are to the effect that, in order to do so, the subscriber must act with promptness and due diligence, both in ascertaining the fraud and taking steps to repudiate his obligation.”

The record discloses that “the parties have consented to waive a jury trial and that his Honor find the facts and his conclusions of law, and after hearing the testimony for the plaintiff and the defendant, the court finds the following facts,” (setting same forth). . . . Upon the foregoing facts, the court found the following conclusions of law: That the defendant, Henry B. Hood, was guilty of laches in not repudiating the stock purchase transactions between 2 May, 1928, and 19 November, 1930,” etc.

If there is sufficient competent evidence to support this finding of fact by the court, in regard to laches, this Court is bound by the findings as in a jury trial. There was competent evidence on the record for the court below to have found the facts either way. The court below found the facts that defendant was guilty of laches, and we are bound by the finding. See Hood v. Martin, post, 620. The judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.