Nall v. . McMath

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Nall v. . McMath

98 S.E. 374, 177 N.C. 183, 1919 N.C. LEXIS 97

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 5, 1919

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 98 S.E. 374 (Nall v. . McMath) 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

Nall v. . McMath, 98 S.E. 374, 177 N.C. 183, 1919 N.C. LEXIS 97 (N.C. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Allen, J.

The principle is well established that an objection that there is no evidence to support a verdict will not be considered when made for the first time after the verdict has been returned (S. v. Leak, 156 N. C., 643), and there is no reason for refusing to enforce the rule when it appears, as it does in this record that both parties had full notice that the jury was not satisfied to find the true line to be as contended for by either party, and when not only was there no opposition to a departure from these contentions and no request' to instruct the jury they must find according to the contention of one or the other, but on the ■contrary counsel on both sides aided the court and jury in framing the answer to the issue, without suggesting that there was no. evidence to .support- this finding until after the return of the verdict.

We have, however, examined the evidence and cannot say that the .jury has not established the true line between the parties. It is true that most of the evidence was directed to the lines according to the respective ■contentions of the plaintiffs and the defendants, but the surveyor testified that the acreage of the plaintiffs and defendants exceeded that called for in their deeds and a number of deeds were introduced by both parties which required allowances for variations in the compass, and as to the •deeds of both plaintiffs and defendants the distances, in order to reach their respective claims, required more than was called for in the deeds.

We would not be understood as holding that the jury has the right to ■compromise the claims of litigants, and if it clearly appeared that they had done so and had returned the verdict with nothing to sustain it, and that there was no notice of the purpose to do so, the parties would be ■entitled to relief.

The motion for judgment non obstante veredicto has nothing to sustain it, as this motion can only be granted when it appears from the *186 pleadings and the verdict, and not from the evidence, that the party is entitled to judgment. Baxter v. Irwin, 158 N. C., 277.

The judgment must be affirmed.

No error.

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

Allen, J.

The principle is well established that an objection that there is no evidence to support a verdict will not be considered when made for the first time after the verdict has been returned (S. v. Leak, 156 N. C., 643), and there is no reason for refusing to enforce the rule when it appears, as it does in this record that both parties had full notice that the jury was not satisfied to find the true line to be as contended for by either party, and when not only was there no opposition to a departure from these contentions and no request' to instruct the jury they must find according to the contention of one or the other, but on the ■contrary counsel on both sides aided the court and jury in framing the answer to the issue, without suggesting that there was no. evidence to .support- this finding until after the return of the verdict.

We have, however, examined the evidence and cannot say that the .jury has not established the true line between the parties. It is true that most of the evidence was directed to the lines according to the respective ■contentions of the plaintiffs and the defendants, but the surveyor testified that the acreage of the plaintiffs and defendants exceeded that called for in their deeds and a number of deeds were introduced by both parties which required allowances for variations in the compass, and as to the •deeds of both plaintiffs and defendants the distances, in order to reach their respective claims, required more than was called for in the deeds.

We would not be understood as holding that the jury has the right to ■compromise the claims of litigants, and if it clearly appeared that they had done so and had returned the verdict with nothing to sustain it, and that there was no notice of the purpose to do so, the parties would be ■entitled to relief.

The motion for judgment non obstante veredicto has nothing to sustain it, as this motion can only be granted when it appears from the *186 pleadings and the verdict, and not from the evidence, that the party is entitled to judgment. Baxter v. Irwin, 158 N. C., 277.

The judgment must be affirmed.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 S.E. 374, 177 N.C. 183, 1919 N.C. LEXIS 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nall-v-mcmath-nc-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack