Bank of Wake v. Sanders

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Bank of Wake v. Sanders

165 S.E. 711, 203 N.C. 847, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 108

DecidedOctober 12, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 165 S.E. 711 (Bank of Wake v. Sanders) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bank of Wake v. Sanders, 165 S.E. 711, 203 N.C. 847, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 108 (N.C. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The question as to whether there was error in the instruction of the court to the jury, to which defendants duly excepted, is not presented on this appeal by plaintiff.

The power of the judge to set aside the verdict and order a new trial, in his discretion, is expressly recognized by statute. C. S., 591. The exercise of this power in the instant case is not subject to review by this Court.

“The discretion of the judge to set aside a verdict is not an arbitrary one to be exercised capriciously or according to his absolute will, but reasonably and with the object solely of preventing what may seem to him an inequitable result. The power is an inherent one, and is regarded as essential to the proper administration of the law. It is not limited to cases where the verdict is found to be against the weight of the evidence, but extends to many others. While the necessity for exercising this discretion, in any given case, is not to be determined by the *848 mere inclination of the judge, but by a sound and enlightened judgment in an effort to attain tbe end of all law, namely, the doing of even and exact justice, we will yet not supervise it, except, perhaps, in extreme circumstances, not at all likely to arise; and it is therefore practically unlimited.” Settee v. R. R., 170 N. C., 365, 86 S. E., 1050, and quoted with approval in Wolf v. Goldstein, 192 N. C., 818, 135 S. E., 39. The order is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The question as to whether there was error in the instruction of the court to the jury, to which defendants duly excepted, is not presented on this appeal by plaintiff.

The power of the judge to set aside the verdict and order a new trial, in his discretion, is expressly recognized by statute. C. S., 591. The exercise of this power in the instant case is not subject to review by this Court.

“The discretion of the judge to set aside a verdict is not an arbitrary one to be exercised capriciously or according to his absolute will, but reasonably and with the object solely of preventing what may seem to him an inequitable result. The power is an inherent one, and is regarded as essential to the proper administration of the law. It is not limited to cases where the verdict is found to be against the weight of the evidence, but extends to many others. While the necessity for exercising this discretion, in any given case, is not to be determined by the *848 mere inclination of the judge, but by a sound and enlightened judgment in an effort to attain tbe end of all law, namely, the doing of even and exact justice, we will yet not supervise it, except, perhaps, in extreme circumstances, not at all likely to arise; and it is therefore practically unlimited.” Settee v. R. R., 170 N. C., 365, 86 S. E., 1050, and quoted with approval in Wolf v. Goldstein, 192 N. C., 818, 135 S. E., 39. The order is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 S.E. 711, 203 N.C. 847, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-wake-v-sanders-nc-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack