Lewis v. . Foard

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Lewis v. . Foard

17 S.E. 9, 112 N.C. 402

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 5, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 17 S.E. 9 (Lewis v. . Foard) 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

Lewis v. . Foard, 17 S.E. 9, 112 N.C. 402 (N.C. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Claric, J.:

Th.e plaintiff, after verdict, moved for judgment upon the pleadings. This was properly denied, because an issue was distinctly raised by the answer, and was submitted to the jury without objection.

The plaintiff also moved for a certiorari to correct the case on appeal by setting out'that the motion for judgment by plaintiff, after the verdict against him, was made “upon admissions in the testimony of the defendant upon the trial” as well as “upon the pleadings.” The plaintiff avers that the Judge is willing to make the correction. But if such correction of the case were made we cannot see how it would benefit the plaintiff. If admissions were made by the defendant in his testimony, as alleged, the plaintiff should have asked for instructions upon that aspect of the case. He did not. do so, nor did he file any exceptions to the charge. We do not understand how he can get the benefit of an objection for an omission to charge by a motion non obstante veredicto. Indeed, that motion can only be made on the face of the pleadings. Walker v. Scott, 106 N. C., 56. There was no exception for omission to charge, and, besides, that is not ground for exception, unless there was a prayer for instruction refused. Boon v. Murphy, 108 N. C., 187, and other cases cited. Clark’s Code (2d Ed.), p. 382. The motion for certiorari must be1 denied, and the judgment below is Affirmed.

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

Claric, J.:

Th.e plaintiff, after verdict, moved for judgment upon the pleadings. This was properly denied, because an issue was distinctly raised by the answer, and was submitted to the jury without objection.

The plaintiff also moved for a certiorari to correct the case on appeal by setting out'that the motion for judgment by plaintiff, after the verdict against him, was made “upon admissions in the testimony of the defendant upon the trial” as well as “upon the pleadings.” The plaintiff avers that the Judge is willing to make the correction. But if such correction of the case were made we cannot see how it would benefit the plaintiff. If admissions were made by the defendant in his testimony, as alleged, the plaintiff should have asked for instructions upon that aspect of the case. He did not. do so, nor did he file any exceptions to the charge. We do not understand how he can get the benefit of an objection for an omission to charge by a motion non obstante veredicto. Indeed, that motion can only be made on the face of the pleadings. Walker v. Scott, 106 N. C., 56. There was no exception for omission to charge, and, besides, that is not ground for exception, unless there was a prayer for instruction refused. Boon v. Murphy, 108 N. C., 187, and other cases cited. Clark’s Code (2d Ed.), p. 382. The motion for certiorari must be1 denied, and the judgment below is Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 S.E. 9, 112 N.C. 402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-foard-nc-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack