Cherry v. . Hodges

121 S.E. 538, 187 N.C. 368, 1924 N.C. LEXIS 286
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMarch 5, 1924
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 121 S.E. 538 (Cherry v. . Hodges) 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
Cherry v. . Hodges, 121 S.E. 538, 187 N.C. 368, 1924 N.C. LEXIS 286 (N.C. 1924).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The controversy, on trial, narrowed itself principally to questions of fact, which the jury alone could determine. A careful perusal of the record leaves us with the impression that the case has been tried substantially in conformity to the law bearing on the subject, and no sufficient reason has been found for disturbing the result below.

*369 Appellants’ chief exceptions relate to the admission and exclusion of evidence and to portions of the charge. We have found no ruling or action on the part of the trial court which we apprehend should be held for reversible error.

It is now settled law that the charge of the court must be considered and examined by us, not disconnectedly, but as a whole, or at least the whole of what was said regarding any special phase of the case or the law. The losing party will not be permitted to select detached portions of the charge, even if in themselves subject to criticism, and assign errors as to them, when, if considered with other portions, they are readily explained and the charge in its entirety appears to be correct. Each portion of the charge must be considered with reference to what precedes and follows it. In other words, it must be taken in its setting. The charge should be viewed contextually and not disjointedly. Any other rule would he unjust, both to the trial judge and to the parties.

The verdict and judgment must be upheld.

No error.

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

Related

McDaniel v. Atlantic Coast Line Railway
130 S.E. 208 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Hunt v. . Eure
127 S.E. 593 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Speas v. Merchants Bank & Trust Co.
125 S.E. 398 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 S.E. 538, 187 N.C. 368, 1924 N.C. LEXIS 286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cherry-v-hodges-nc-1924.