It is manifest the facts found by the court below disclose that the defendant and its predecessor were transacting business in the State of North Carolina within the meaning of G.S. 58-164 (e) and that the service of process under this statute was sufficient to meet the requirements of due process and hold the defendant amenable to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Guilford County. See Lunceford v. Association, 190 N.C. 314, 129 S.E. 805; Travelers Health Asso. v. Virginia, 339 U.S. 643, 70 S. Ct. 927, 94 L. Ed. 1154; International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95, 161 A.L.R. 1057; Parmelee v. Iowa State Traveling Men’s Asso., 206 F. 2d 518, cert. den. 346 U.S. 877, 98 L. Ed. 384; Zacharakis v. Bunker Hill Mutual Insurance Co., 120 N.Y.S. 2d 418; Annotation: 94 L. Ed. 1167, 1175.
The appeal seems to be predicated in the main upon assignments of error to the effect that the court erred in making findings of fact Nos. 5, 13, 18, and 20. But these assignments are not supported by exceptions previously noted as required by our rules. See Rules 19 (3) and 21, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N.C. 544.
When it is claimed that findings of fact made by the judge are not supported by competent evidence, a litigant who would invoke the right of 'review must point out specifically the alleged error. This he must do by exception. The assignment of error alone will not suffice. Worsley v. Rendering Co., 239 N.C. 547, 80 S.E. 2d 467; Donnell v. Cox, 240 N.C. 259, 81 S.E. 2d 664.
The function'of-the assignment of errors is to group and bring forward such of the exceptions previously made and noted in the case on appeal as the appellant desires to preserve and present to the Court. Moore v. Crosswell, 240 N.C. 473, 82 S.E. 2d 208; Dobias v. White, 240 N.C. 680, 83 S.E. 2d 785; Rawls v. Lupton, 193 N.C. 428, 137 S.E. 175. Therefore an assignment of error not supported by an exception will be disregarded. *487 Moore v. Crosswell, supra; Donnell v. Cox, supra; S. v. Gordon, ante, 356. This rule is mandatory and will be enforced ex mero moiu. Anderson v. Heating Co., 238 N.C. 138, 76 S.E. 2d 458; Donnell v. Cox, supra; Pruitt v. Wood, 199 N.C. 788, 156 S.E. 126.
The only exception in tbe instant record is tbe general exception to tbe judgment. Tbis brings bere for review tbe single question whether tbe facts found support tbe judgment. It does not bring up for review “tbe findings of fact or tbe evidence on which they are based.” Hoover v. Crotts, 232 N.C. 617, 61 S.E. 2d 705; Bailey v. McPherson, 233 N.C. 231, 63 S.E. 2d 559; Greene v. Spivey, 236 N.C. 435, 73 S.E. 2d 488.
Here the findings of fact support tbe judgment. Tbis suffices to work an affirmation of tbe judgment below. Further discussion is not necessary.
Nevertheless, we have examined tbe record and conclude that tbe determinative findings of fact are not subject to successful challenge. Tbe record is free of prejudicial or reversible error and tbe judgment is in accord with tbe decided weight of authority.
Tbe cases cited by tbe defendant are distinguishable or are not considered authoritative.
Tbe judgment below is