
    EARL BURLESON v. CHARLES C. FRANCIS, SAM FERGUSON and THOMAS H. ROGERS, Buncombe County Review Committee.
    (Filed 18 September, 1957.)
    Agriculture § 11—
    Tbe finding of fact of the Superior Court that there was substantial evidence suppOTting the determination by the review committee of the tobacco allotment of the petitioner’s farm is binding on the Supreme Court if there be evidence to support it.
    Appeal by petitioner from Sink, E. J., at the May 1957 Civil Term of BuNCOmbe.
    Civil action brought under provisions of Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 7 USCA Sec. 1301 et seg., particularly Secs. 1365, 1366, for judicial review of the determination of the Buncombe County Review Committee which established the burley tobacco farm acreage allotment on petitioner’s farm No. 1804'for the year 1956. This Committee made findings of fact and rendered conclusions of law in respect thereto by which petitioner’s allotment for 1956 was reduced in accordance with Section 725.719(e) of the tobacco marketing quota regulations, 1956-57 marketing year.
    Petitioner excepted to each of the findings of fact for that “there is not sufficient competent evidence upon which to base same,” and for like reason petitioner excepts to the conclusions of law as “erroneous in fact and in law.”
    When the cause came on for hearing in Superior Court “upon the application of the plaintiff for review of the determination of the Review Committee with respect to plaintiff’s 1956 burley tobacco farm acreage allotment,” the Presiding Judge entered judgment, in which after reciting that “it appearing to the court and the court finding it as a fact that the determination of the Review Committee in this matter is supported by substantial evidence and the law applicable thereto,” “ordered, adjudged and decreed that the determination of the Review Committee be hereby confirmed in every respect and the plaintiff taxed with the costs of this action.”
    To the signing and entering of the foregoing judgment plaintiff objects and excepts and appeals to Supreme Court, and assigns as error the same matter as was set forth in exception to the determination by the Review Committee.
    
      James S. Howell and McLean, Gudger, Elmore & Martin for Plaintiff Appellant.
    
    
      J. Stephen Doyle, Jr., Neil Brooks, J. M. Baley, Jr., Robert H. Lacey, and Emily A. Kindel for Defendants Appellees.
    
   PeR CüRiam.

Pertinent Section No. 1366 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act declares that “the review by the Court shall be limited to questions of law, and the findings of fact by the Review Committee if supported by evidence shall be conclusive.”

In the light of this provision the finding of fact by Judge of Superior Court that the determination by the Review Committee is supported by substantial evidence is binding on this Court if there be evidence to support it. And in exceptions thereto, and to the legal conclusion reached error is not made to appear to this Court. See Lee v. Berry, 219 S.C. 382, 65 S.E. 2d 775.

Hence the judgment from which appeal is taken is

Affirmed.  