McDonald v. . Zimmerman

175 S.E. 92, 206 N.C. 746, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 304
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided June 20, 1934·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

*747 Bbogden, J.

It is accepted law that facts and transactions wbicb have no vital relation to the cause of action alleged, ought not to be scrambled in a complaint. However, mere scenery and stage decoration contained in a pleading do not warrant the conclusion that such may form the basis for the introduction of incompetent evidence at the trial. It is to be assumed that the trial judge will confine the evidence to the cause of action set up. Consequently it cannot be held, as a matter of law, that the allegations in the present complaint purporting to disclose the course of dealing between the defendant and his agent, Seay, are wholly irrelevant and harmful. See Pemberton v. Greensboro, 203 N. C., 514, 166 S. E., 396.

Affirmed.

Schenck, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

McDonald v. . Zimmerman, 175 S.E. 92, 206 N.C. 746, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 304 (N.C. 1934).

175 S.E. 92 (McDonald v. . Zimmerman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ledford v. Marion Transportation Co.
74 S.E.2d 653 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)
Rhodes v. Jones
61 S.E.2d 725 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
Hawkins v. . Moss
21 S.E.2d 873 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)
Ludwick v. . R. R.
194 S.E. 282 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Ludwick v. Southern Railway Co.
212 N.C. 664 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)