Morgan v. . Lewis

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Morgan v. . Lewis

95 N.C. 296

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 5, 1886

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 95 N.C. 296 (Morgan v. . Lewis) 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

Morgan v. . Lewis, 95 N.C. 296 (N.C. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

MerrimoN, J.

It is stated in the case stated on appeal, that the only point contested on the trial, was as to whether the note, (the single bond sued upon), was executed by L. D. Lewis, as contended by the plaintiffs, or whether the same was a forgery, as alleged by the defendants. This being so, we are unable to •discover any error in the instruction of the Court to the jury, complained of by the appellant. It was admitted that Lewis did not himself sign the bond, but the plaintiffs both testified that he could not write, and that he was present, and by his direction the plaintiff W. T. Morgan signed the bond for him. This the defendant flatly denied, and there was conflicting evidence. The Court told the jury, that the single question was, whether the defendant L. D. Lewis stood by and directed the plaintiff W. T. Morgan to sign his name to the bond for him; that if he did, then the bond was his, and they should find the first issue in the affirmative, otherwise in the negative. The plaintiffs could not complain of this. In view of the evidence, it was a proper presentation of the question to the jury.

The Court properly told them, that if they should find the first issue in the negative, then they should also find the second *298 one in the negative; because there was no evidence that the defendants, or either of them, owed the plaintiffs, on any account other than the alleged bond. The issue was simple, and the facts were few and plain. The Court gave the jury the brief instruction complained of, not unfavorable to the plaintiffs, that enabled them to see clearly the issue submitted to them, and the evidence bearing upon it. This was sufficient. If the plaintiffs-desired that the instructions should be fuller — more explanatory —or that some possible view of the facts, not obvious, should be presented to them, then they should have asked the Court so to do. As they did not, that it was not done, was not error. The Court is not required to present possible aspects of the facts in their bearing on an issue, certainly not when they are not requested to do so.

There is no error, and the judgment must be affirmed.

No error. Affirmed.

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

MerrimoN, J.

It is stated in the case stated on appeal, that the only point contested on the trial, was as to whether the note, (the single bond sued upon), was executed by L. D. Lewis, as contended by the plaintiffs, or whether the same was a forgery, as alleged by the defendants. This being so, we are unable to •discover any error in the instruction of the Court to the jury, complained of by the appellant. It was admitted that Lewis did not himself sign the bond, but the plaintiffs both testified that he could not write, and that he was present, and by his direction the plaintiff W. T. Morgan signed the bond for him. This the defendant flatly denied, and there was conflicting evidence. The Court told the jury, that the single question was, whether the defendant L. D. Lewis stood by and directed the plaintiff W. T. Morgan to sign his name to the bond for him; that if he did, then the bond was his, and they should find the first issue in the affirmative, otherwise in the negative. The plaintiffs could not complain of this. In view of the evidence, it was a proper presentation of the question to the jury.

The Court properly told them, that if they should find the first issue in the negative, then they should also find the second *298 one in the negative; because there was no evidence that the defendants, or either of them, owed the plaintiffs, on any account other than the alleged bond. The issue was simple, and the facts were few and plain. The Court gave the jury the brief instruction complained of, not unfavorable to the plaintiffs, that enabled them to see clearly the issue submitted to them, and the evidence bearing upon it. This was sufficient. If the plaintiffs-desired that the instructions should be fuller — more explanatory —or that some possible view of the facts, not obvious, should be presented to them, then they should have asked the Court so to do. As they did not, that it was not done, was not error. The Court is not required to present possible aspects of the facts in their bearing on an issue, certainly not when they are not requested to do so.

There is no error, and the judgment must be affirmed.

No error. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 N.C. 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-lewis-nc-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack