Miller v. Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Co.

169 S.E. 194, 204 N.C. 608, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 211
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided May 3, 1933·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

We have examined the assignments of error appearing on the record and find, none of sufficient merit to warrant a new trial.

The exceptions addressed to the exclusion of evidence do not show what the answers to the questions would have been. The effect of the rulings, therefore, whether hurtful or other, is not apparent. “Where the record shows exceptions to unanswered questions, without more, the exceptions will not be considered on appeal.” Hubbard and Co. v. Brown, 186 N. C., 96, 118 S. E., 896; Allred v. Kirkman, 160 N. C., 392, 76 S. E., 244.

The tenth assignment of error is as follows: “The court erred in his charge to the jury as will appear in the charge, record pages 35 to 45.” *609 It was said in S. v. Moore, 201 N. C., 618, 161 S. E., 91, that a broadside exception “to the charge as given” would not be considered. Un-pointed exceptions to the charge are unavailing on appeal. Rawls v. Lupton, 193 N. C., 428, 137 S. E., 175; Roberts v. Davis, 200 N. C., 424, 157 S. E., 66. The remaining exceptions are equally untenable.

No error.

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

Miller v. Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 169 S.E. 194, 204 N.C. 608, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 211 (N.C. 1933).

169 S.E. 194 (Miller v. Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. . Anderson
47 S.E.2d 1 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
State v. . Rhinehart
183 S.E. 388 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
In Re Will of Wilder
171 S.E. 611 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)