McIver v. Poteat

Supreme Court of North Carolina

McIver v. Poteat

146 S.E.2d 18, 266 N.C. 362, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1352

DecidedJanuary 14, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 146 S.E.2d 18 (McIver v. Poteat) 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

McIver v. Poteat, 146 S.E.2d 18, 266 N.C. 362, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1352 (N.C. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff’s evidence was sufficient to carry his case to the jury. The jury, under application of well-settled principles of law, resolved the issues of fact against defendants. While the appellants’ well-prepared brief presents contentions involving fine distinctions and close differentiations, a careful examination of their assignments of error discloses no feature requiring extended discussion. Neither prejudicial nor reversible error has been made to appear which would justify disturbing the verdict and judgment. “A new trial will not be granted for mere technical error which could not have affected the result, but only for error which is prejudicial or harmful.” 1 Strong’s N. C. Index, Appeal and Error, § 40. The verdict and judgment are upheld.

No error.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff’s evidence was sufficient to carry his case to the jury. The jury, under application of well-settled principles of law, resolved the issues of fact against defendants. While the appellants’ well-prepared brief presents contentions involving fine distinctions and close differentiations, a careful examination of their assignments of error discloses no feature requiring extended discussion. Neither prejudicial nor reversible error has been made to appear which would justify disturbing the verdict and judgment. “A new trial will not be granted for mere technical error which could not have affected the result, but only for error which is prejudicial or harmful.” 1 Strong’s N. C. Index, Appeal and Error, § 40. The verdict and judgment are upheld.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 S.E.2d 18, 266 N.C. 362, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mciver-v-poteat-nc-1966.