Matthews v. Fry., 55 S.E. 787 (N.C. 1906). · Go Syfert
Matthews v. Fry., 55 S.E. 787 (N.C. 1906). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“he rule and its application depend not so much on the placing of the qualifying words, or whether they are preceded by the terms, 'provided' or 'except'; but rather on the nature, meaning and purpose of the words themselves.”
78 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Hinkle (ncctapp, 2008-04-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1909 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1909 1967 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State v. Hinkle
N.C. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
he rule and its application depend not so much on the placing of the qualifying words, or whether they are preceded by the terms, 'provided' or 'except'; but rather on the nature, meaning and purpose of the words themselves.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Taylor
N.C. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
App. 593, 599 , 728 S.E.2d 430, 434 (2012) (quoting State v. Connor, 14 N.C. 700 , 704, 55 S.E. 787, 789 (1906)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Taylor
N.C. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
App. 593, 599 , 728 S.E.2d 430, 434 (2012) (quoting State v. Connor, 14 N.C. 700 , 704, 55 S.E. 787, 789 (1906)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Taylor
N.C. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
App. 593, 599 , 728 S.E.2d 430, 434 (2012) (quoting State v. Connor, 14 N.C. 700 , 704, 55 S.E. 787, 789 (1906)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Edgerton
N.C. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
App. 593, 598 , 728 S.E.2d 430, 434 (2012) (citing State v. Connor, 142 N.C. 700, 701 , 55 S.E. 787, 788 (1906)).
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. Rankin (5×) also: Cited "see"
N.C. · 2018 · confidence medium
In such case, this is necessary, in order to make a complete statement of the crime for which defendant is prosecuted. 142 N.C. at 702, 55 S.E. at 788.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Rankin
N.C. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
Id. at 701-03, 55 S.E. at 788-89 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Flaherty
N.C. Ct. App. · 1981 · confidence medium
We begin with the following discussion in State v. Connor, 142 N.C. 700, 701-02 , 55 S.E. 787, 787 (1906): It is well established that when a statute creates a substantive criminal offense, the description of the same being complete and definite, and by subsequent clause, either in the same or some other section, or by another statute, a certain case or class of cases is withdrawn or excepted from its provisions, these excepted cases need not be negative in the indictment, nor is proof required to be made in the first instance on the part of the prosecution.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Matthews
v.
. Fry
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Dec 18, 1906.
55 S.E. 787
Dillard Bell and Bryson Black for the plaintiff . Shepherd Shepherd and C. W. Rowe for the defendant .
Glare.
Cited by 30 opinions  |  Published
Glare, C. J.

“The parties waived a jury trial and agreed in writing that the Judge should find the facts and enter judgment thereon, as upon the facts so found he might decide the law to be.” The Judge found the facts and entered judgment thereon in favor of the defendant. Upon appeal, Matthews v. Fry, 141 N. C., 582, this Court was of opinion that upon the facts found judgment should have been entered in favor of the plaintiff, and entered its order “Reversed.” When the certificate of opinion was presented in the Court below the[*385] plaintiff moved for judgment in accordance therewith. The defendant resisted this judgment and asked for trial de novo and insisted that some of the. findings of fact had been made by the Judge without any evidence to support them.

The judgment was properly entered for plaintiff in accordance with the mandate of this Court to reverse the judgment. Summerlin v. Cowles, 107 N. C., 462; Bernhardt v. Brown, 118 N. C., 711. The findings of fact by the Judge when authorized by law or consent of parties are as conclusive as when found by a jury, if there is any evidence. Branton v. O’Briant, 93 N. C., 103 ; Roberts v. Ins. Co., 118 N. C., 435 ; Walnut v. Wade, 103 U. S., 688. If there was any ground to except to such findings because without evidence to support the finding, upon any point, or for any other cause, the defendant should have done so and have brought up his side of the case also when the plaintiff appealed, or at least he should have entered an exception so as to preserve his rights. It is not unusual for both' parties h> appeal. Having acquiesced in the findings of fact without exception, it is too late to except now.

If the defendant was dissatisfied with the ruling of this Court upon the law, his remedy was by a petition to rehear —which he did, and the petition was disallowed — and not by a motion for a new.trial in disregard of the mandate of this Court.

Affirmed.