Coble v. Martin Fireproofing Georgia, Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Coble v. Martin Fireproofing Georgia, Inc.

214 S.E.2d 239, 25 N.C. App. 671, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2365

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMay 7, 1975

DocketNo. 7415DC1072

StatusPublished

This text of 214 S.E.2d 239 (Coble v. Martin Fireproofing Georgia, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coble v. Martin Fireproofing Georgia, Inc., 214 S.E.2d 239, 25 N.C. App. 671, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2365 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

BROCK, Chief Judge.

The resolution of a single argument is all that is necessary for the disposition of this appeal: Did the trial court violate the mandate of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a), by failing to “declare and explain the law arising on the evidence?” We agree with defendant that it did, and order a new trial.

The charge given by the trial court merely recapitulated the evidence, stated the parties’ contentions, and recited certain gen[673]*673eral principles of contract law. This will not suffice. Investment Properties v. Norburn, 281 N.C. 191, 188 S.E. 2d 342 (1971). The law must be declared, explained, and applied to the evidence bearing on the substantial and essential features of a case. Hawkins v. Simpson, 237 N.C. 155, 74 S.E. 2d 331 (1953).

New trial.

Judges Parker and Arnold concur.

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