Kindler v. . Cary

167 S.E. 226, 203 N.C. 807, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 430

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: January 4, 1933
• Status: Published

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

This case affords a striking illustration of the wisdom of the decision in Baker v. Clayton, 202 N. C., 741, 164 S. E., 233, wherein it is suggested as neither essential nor desirable that the record on appeal to the Superior Court from the General County Court be made the record on appeal to the Supreme Court. Compare, also, McMahan v. R. R., ante, 805. The only question presented for our consideration is the sufficiency of the evidence to carry the ease to the jury on plaintiffs alleged right to recover from the owner for plumbing repairs done at the instance of the lessee, yet twenty pages of the record are taken up with the trial court’s charge to the jury and the seventeen assignments of error made on defendant’s appeal to the Superior Court. The size of the record might well have been reduced to this extent, at least.

"While the testimony adduced on the hearing would seem to justify a recovery against R. H. Boyer (Chemical Co. v. Griffin, 202 N. C., 812, 164 S. E., 577, Newbern v. Fisher, 198 N. C., 385, 151 S. E., 875) bad the jury not decided otherwise, nevertheless the plaintiff did not appeal from the verdict in Boyer’s favor, and we have found no evidence on the record sufficient to carry the case to the jury as against 'the owner, Hunsdon Cary. McMichem v. Brown, 73 S. E. (Ga. App.), 691. This seems to work an unfortunate result so far as the plaintiff is concerned, but in the present state of the record, we are powerless to help him. On the other hand, it is possible that the correct result has been reached. We do not say that it has not.

Affirmed.