Page 312 |
Previous | 312 of 842 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
, 288 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 125
--
Davis v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local 391
Q. How many did you have?
A. Well, I would say approximately sixty-five hundred.
Q. Sixty-five hundred participating in your trust fund
account for this-
A. No, I said members.
MR. DRUM : Objection.
Q. How many participants did you have then if you
had sixty-five hundred members and the figure was
different, how many participants did you have to
your recollection?
A. I don't know; I couldn't give you-I'd say between
forty-four to forty-six hundred.
Q. Closer to forty-six?
A. I would imagine; I can't answer you correctly
because I don't know.
Q. And they are entitled to one dollar a piece.
A. Yes, sir.
&. For forty-six hundred members. Thank you, that
is all."
It is obvious that the witness had no knowledge as to the
number of members participating in the fund on 1 February
1968. He repeatedly disclaimed any such knowledge. It is
equally clear that he had no knowledge of any facts which
would have enabled him to base an opinion as to the number.
His testimony, therefore, does not support the court's finding
of fact to which exception was taken. The finding is not bol-stered
by the testimony of another witness for plaintiff who
testified that he retired in "approximately" April of 1968 and
subsequently received $4,500.00. All of the evidence was to the
effect that the number of participating members fluctuated. The
evidence, therefore, does not support the finding of fact. It
was error for the trial judge to enter judgment for the plaintiff
based on a finding of fact not supported by competent evidence.
Morse v. Cu~tis, 276 N.C. 371, 172 S.E. 2d 495; Horton v.
Redevelopment Commission, 264 N.C. 1, 140 S.E. 2d 728; Coble
Object Description
| Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports [v.015, Spring Session 1972] |
| Creator | North Carolina. Court of Appeals. |
| Date | 1973 |
| Subjects | Law reports, digests, etc.--North Carolina; Court records--North Carolina |
| Place | North Carolina, United States |
| Description | Volume 15, Spring Session 1972. Cited as 15 N.C.App. The North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports are the official report of opinions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Includes cases and other information about the courts of North Carolina. |
| Publisher | Court of Appeals of North Carolina |
| Agency-Current | North Carolina Court of Appeals, Judicial Department |
| Rights | State Document see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63754 |
| Collection | North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina |
| Type | Text |
| Language | English |
| Format | Reports; Legal documents |
| Digital Characteristics-A | 36 MB; 842 p. |
| Serial Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports |
| Digital Collection | North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection |
| Digital Format | application/pdf |
| Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_courtofappealsreports_vol_015.pdf |
| Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_law\images_master\ |
| OCLC Number-Original | 1681248 |
Description
| Title | Page 312 |
| Full Text | , 288 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 125 -- Davis v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local 391 Q. How many did you have? A. Well, I would say approximately sixty-five hundred. Q. Sixty-five hundred participating in your trust fund account for this- A. No, I said members. MR. DRUM : Objection. Q. How many participants did you have then if you had sixty-five hundred members and the figure was different, how many participants did you have to your recollection? A. I don't know; I couldn't give you-I'd say between forty-four to forty-six hundred. Q. Closer to forty-six? A. I would imagine; I can't answer you correctly because I don't know. Q. And they are entitled to one dollar a piece. A. Yes, sir. &. For forty-six hundred members. Thank you, that is all." It is obvious that the witness had no knowledge as to the number of members participating in the fund on 1 February 1968. He repeatedly disclaimed any such knowledge. It is equally clear that he had no knowledge of any facts which would have enabled him to base an opinion as to the number. His testimony, therefore, does not support the court's finding of fact to which exception was taken. The finding is not bol-stered by the testimony of another witness for plaintiff who testified that he retired in "approximately" April of 1968 and subsequently received $4,500.00. All of the evidence was to the effect that the number of participating members fluctuated. The evidence, therefore, does not support the finding of fact. It was error for the trial judge to enter judgment for the plaintiff based on a finding of fact not supported by competent evidence. Morse v. Cu~tis, 276 N.C. 371, 172 S.E. 2d 495; Horton v. Redevelopment Commission, 264 N.C. 1, 140 S.E. 2d 728; Coble |
