Beck v. Lexington Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
This text of 199 S.E. 924 (Beck v. Lexington Coca-Cola Bottling Co.) 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.
Opinion
Is it proper to admit evidence at variance witb tbe bill of particulars filed? Tbe uniform decisions of tbis Court say “No.”
When a bill of particulars is ordered and furnished, tbe evidence offered at tbe trial must be confined to items therein specified. S. v. Wadford, 194 N. C., 336, 139 S. E., 608; Gore v. Wilmington, 194 N. C., 450, 140 S. E., 71; Ham v. Norwood, 196 N. C., 762, 147 S. E., 291; Gruber v. Ewbanks, 199 N. C., 335, 154 S. E., 318; S. v. Lea, 203 N. C., 13, 164 S. E., 737; S. v. Everhardt, 203 N. C., 610, 166 S. E., 738; Pemberton v. Greensboro, 205 N. C., 599, 172 S. E., 196; Savage v. Currin, 207 N. C., 222, 176 S. E., 569; S. v. Williams, 211 N. C., 569, 190 S. E., 898.
Over tbe objection of defendant, tbe trial court admitted evidence of “other occurrences” which varied from tbe bill of particulars filed by plaintiff — especially witb respect to tbe Stella Yount purchase. In tbis there is prejudicial error.
As there must be a new trial, other exceptions need not now be considered as tbe matters to which objection is taken may not then recur.
Demurrer, ore tonus, made in tbis Court by defendant is overruled. "When liberally construed, tbe complaint alleges facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
For error specified, let there be a
New trial.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
199 S.E. 924, 214 N.C. 566, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beck-v-lexington-coca-cola-bottling-co-nc-1938.