Fowler v. . Apperson

104 S.E. 753, 180 N.C. 669, 1920 N.C. LEXIS 171
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedNovember 17, 1920
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 104 S.E. 753 (Fowler v. . Apperson) 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
Fowler v. . Apperson, 104 S.E. 753, 180 N.C. 669, 1920 N.C. LEXIS 171 (N.C. 1920).

Opinion

Pee Cubiam.

We have considered this case with careful regard for the fights of the parties and the law applicable to the findings of fact. The case substantially involved only questions of fact, and the verdict was fully warranted by the evidence. The charge of the judge is free from error.

1. The first assignment of error must be disallowed, because the question as to the ratification of the contract, which the defendant, Mrs. Apperson, had attacked for fraud, was one for the jury under the circumstances of this case. There was evidence tending to show that R. R. Saunders had agreed to take the horse back and give up the oxen, in other words, to cancel the bargain, and this, with other evidence bearing on the question, was peculiarly for the jury to consider and pass upon.

2. The oral request for an instruction, if properly submitted, as to Saunders’ knowledge of the horse’s age, was substantially given by the court, and Saunders had the full benefit of his prayer in the charge.

3. This prayer was properly explained to the jury, and we can see no material harm in it. The whole matter was stated with accuracy by his Honor, and there was nothing to mislead the jury.

4. Issue No. 10 related to a matter which was an essential.part of the whole transaction, and there could be no harm done in submitting it to the jury, in order for them to find all of the facts; and the same may be said of issue No. 11, which is the subject of the 5th assignment of error.

*672 5. THe other assignment is merely formal. Neither defendant has any ground of complaint. The case was correctly tried and decided.

No error.

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

Related

Michaux v. Paul Rubber Co.
130 S.E. 306 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 S.E. 753, 180 N.C. 669, 1920 N.C. LEXIS 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fowler-v-apperson-nc-1920.