Nevins v. . Hughes

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Nevins v. . Hughes

84 S.E. 769, 168 N.C. 477, 1915 N.C. LEXIS 88

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 24, 1915

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 84 S.E. 769 (Nevins v. . Hughes) 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

Nevins v. . Hughes, 84 S.E. 769, 168 N.C. 477, 1915 N.C. LEXIS 88 (N.C. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

"Walker, I.,

after stating tbe case: Tbe only question in tbe case, as we view it, is one of fact. There are two exceptions, botb to tbe charge of tbe court. Tbe first is addressed to the statement by tbe judge of tbe contention of the plaintiff, and tbe ground of objection is that there was no evidence to support it; but upon a careful perusal of tbe testimony, we think otherwise. If tbe defendant thought that tbe statement was erroneous or calculated to mislead tbe jury, be should have called tbe court’s attention to it at tbe time, so that it could be corrected and conformed to tbe evidence. Jeffreys v. R. R., 158 N. C., 215; S. v. Cox, 153 N. C., 638; S. v. Blackwell, 162 N. C., 672; S. v. Wade, at this term. But we discover no such fault in tbe charge.

Tbe second exception was taken to an instruction to tbe jury, in substance as follows: If you are satisfied, by the- greater weight of'the evidence, that tbe contract was made as alleged by tbe plaintiff, and that be performed it, “in accordance with its terms,” in making tbe sale, tbe burden being on tbe plaintiff to so satisfy you, then you will answer tbe issue, “Yes; $750”; but if not so satisfied, you will answer it “No; nothing,” and tbe ground of tbe exception is not to tbe form of tbe instruction, for it could not well be, but that there was no evidence to warrant it; but we think that there was some evidence to support tbe entire charge, which was fair, full, and impartial, and presented tbe issues to tbe jury with clearness and precision.

Apart from these exceptions, tbe defendant testified that there was an • agreement, after tbe original contract was changed at Norfolk, that there would be no commissions; but tbe plaintiff in bis testimony contradicted this, and stated that it was understood and agreed that tbe same amount, as bis share of tbe commissions, would be paid to him, notwithstanding tbe alteration in tbe terms of tbe sale. This presented an. issue of fact purely.

Upon full consideration of tbe case, no error has been found. Tbe .jury have simply found tbe facts against tbe defendant.

No error.

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

"Walker, I.,

after stating tbe case: Tbe only question in tbe case, as we view it, is one of fact. There are two exceptions, botb to tbe charge of tbe court. Tbe first is addressed to the statement by tbe judge of tbe contention of the plaintiff, and tbe ground of objection is that there was no evidence to support it; but upon a careful perusal of tbe testimony, we think otherwise. If tbe defendant thought that tbe statement was erroneous or calculated to mislead tbe jury, be should have called tbe court’s attention to it at tbe time, so that it could be corrected and conformed to tbe evidence. Jeffreys v. R. R., 158 N. C., 215; S. v. Cox, 153 N. C., 638; S. v. Blackwell, 162 N. C., 672; S. v. Wade, at this term. But we discover no such fault in tbe charge.

Tbe second exception was taken to an instruction to tbe jury, in substance as follows: If you are satisfied, by the- greater weight of'the evidence, that tbe contract was made as alleged by tbe plaintiff, and that be performed it, “in accordance with its terms,” in making tbe sale, tbe burden being on tbe plaintiff to so satisfy you, then you will answer tbe issue, “Yes; $750”; but if not so satisfied, you will answer it “No; nothing,” and tbe ground of tbe exception is not to tbe form of tbe instruction, for it could not well be, but that there was no evidence to warrant it; but we think that there was some evidence to support tbe entire charge, which was fair, full, and impartial, and presented tbe issues to tbe jury with clearness and precision.

Apart from these exceptions, tbe defendant testified that there was an • agreement, after tbe original contract was changed at Norfolk, that there would be no commissions; but tbe plaintiff in bis testimony contradicted this, and stated that it was understood and agreed that tbe same amount, as bis share of tbe commissions, would be paid to him, notwithstanding tbe alteration in tbe terms of tbe sale. This presented an. issue of fact purely.

Upon full consideration of tbe case, no error has been found. Tbe .jury have simply found tbe facts against tbe defendant.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 S.E. 769, 168 N.C. 477, 1915 N.C. LEXIS 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nevins-v-hughes-nc-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack