Brown v. . Lipe

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Brown v. . Lipe

185 S.E. 681, 210 N.C. 199, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 55

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 20, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 185 S.E. 681 (Brown v. . Lipe) 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

Brown v. . Lipe, 185 S.E. 681, 210 N.C. 199, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 55 (N.C. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The charge of the judge of the municipal court as to the measure of damages in a case of wrongful death was erroneous under the rule laid down in Poe v. R. R., 141 N. C., 525, wherein Walker, J., clearly drew the distinction between income and annuity, and it was held for error to permit the jury to consider the annuity tables set out in C. S., 1791, as was done in the instant case. Ward v. R. R., 161 N. C., 179; Corner v. Winston-Salem, 178 N. C., 383.

The plaintiff, however, contends that even if the charge of the trial court on the issue of damages was properly held to be erroneous, the new trial should have been restricted to that issue. While this course is frequently pursued by appellate courts, when the error is confined to *200 one issue, it has been repeatedly held and now firmly established with us that it is a matter of discretion. Lumber Co. v. Branch, 158 N. C., 251; Huffman v. Ingold, 181 N. C., 426; Whedbee v. Ruffin, 191 N. C., 257.

The judgment of the court below remanding the case to the municipal court of the city of High Point for a new trial is

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The charge of the judge of the municipal court as to the measure of damages in a case of wrongful death was erroneous under the rule laid down in Poe v. R. R., 141 N. C., 525, wherein Walker, J., clearly drew the distinction between income and annuity, and it was held for error to permit the jury to consider the annuity tables set out in C. S., 1791, as was done in the instant case. Ward v. R. R., 161 N. C., 179; Corner v. Winston-Salem, 178 N. C., 383.

The plaintiff, however, contends that even if the charge of the trial court on the issue of damages was properly held to be erroneous, the new trial should have been restricted to that issue. While this course is frequently pursued by appellate courts, when the error is confined to *200 one issue, it has been repeatedly held and now firmly established with us that it is a matter of discretion. Lumber Co. v. Branch, 158 N. C., 251; Huffman v. Ingold, 181 N. C., 426; Whedbee v. Ruffin, 191 N. C., 257.

The judgment of the court below remanding the case to the municipal court of the city of High Point for a new trial is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 S.E. 681, 210 N.C. 199, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-lipe-nc-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack