
    WILLIAM JAMES WALTON v. WESTA LLOYD and RUBY B. LLOYD
    No. 7510DC219
    (Filed 4 June 1975)
    Trover and Conversion § 2— conversion of property — sufficiency of findings
    The trial court’s findings of fact support its judgment for plaintiff in an action to recover for the conversion of property plaintiff had placed in premises leased from defendants.
    Appeal by defendant Westa Lloyd from Barnette, Judge. judgment entered 27 November 1974 in District Court, Wake County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 May 1975. '
    
    Plaintiff brought this action seeking to recover the value of personal property allegedly converted by defendants. In his complaint plaintiff alleged' that he and defendants entered into a lease agreement on 11 June 1968 and that he took possession of and placed fixtures and equipment on the premises for the operation of an establishment called the “Grand Prix Restaurant.” Shortly thereafter a receiver was appointed to manage the business while litigation was pending between plaintiff and one James W. Smith. An order was entered on 9 July 1969 adjudicating ownership of the business and its assets in plaintiff. He immediately made demand upon defendants for possession of the premises and its contents. Defendants refused and on 16 September 1971 plaintiff filed suit.
    The action was dismissed for failure to prosecute, but that judgment later was set aside. The cause came on for hearing. The court found that defendants had taken possession of the leased premises and plaintiff’s personal property worth $2,500.00 at the time of taking and converted it to their own use. From judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $2,500.00, with interest, defendant gave notice of appeal.
    
      Ellis Nassif for 'plaintiff appellee.
    
    
      W. G. Parker for defendant appellant.
    
   ARNOLD, Judge.

In the record on appeal, deféndant has attempted to group seven assignments of error based on his exception to the judgment. The question before us therefore is whether error of law appears on the face of the record proper. See Clark v. Richardson, 24 N.C. App. 556, 211 S.E. 2d 530 (1975) ; Moore v. Strickland, 23 N.C. App. 732, 209. S.E. 2d 830 (1974). The trial court’s findings of fact support the judgment. No error appears on the face of the record. The judgment is

Affirmed.

Judges Martin and Clark concur.  