Oxendine v. Moss

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Oxendine v. Moss

306 S.E.2d 831, 64 N.C. App. 205, 1983 N.C. App. LEXIS 3214

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 20, 1983

DocketNo. 8220DC1019

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 306 S.E.2d 831 (Oxendine v. Moss) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Oxendine v. Moss, 306 S.E.2d 831, 64 N.C. App. 205, 1983 N.C. App. LEXIS 3214 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

WELLS, Judge.

In their sole assignment of error, defendants contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence, on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to permit the jury to find existence of an account stated.

Although plaintiff’s complaint alleged and plaintiff’s evidence tended to support two separate theories of recovery for his services, i.e., work performed and an account stated, defendants, the moving party, failed to state to the trial court any specific grounds for their motion for a directed verdict, as required by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Under such circumstances, defendants have failed to preserve the trial court’s denial of their motion for our review. Johnson v. Dunlop, 53 N.C. App. 312, 280 S.E. 2d 759 (1981); Builders Supplies Co. of Goldsboro, N.C. v. Gainey, 10 N.C. App. 364, 178 S.E. 2d 794 (1971); Pergerson v. Williams, 9 N.C. App. 512, 176 S.E. 2d 885 (1970); Compare Anderson v. Butler, 284 N.C. 723, 202 S.E. 2d 585 (1974).

Defendants also failed to include in the record on appeal their motion for a directed verdict or the trial court’s order denying their motion, but merely referred in their brief to the pages of the trial transcript where these transactions might be found. This does not comply with the requirements of Rule 9(b)(1)(viii) and (x) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

[207]*207Appeal dismissed.

Judges Hedrick and Phillips concur.

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

WELLS, Judge.

In their sole assignment of error, defendants contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence, on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to permit the jury to find existence of an account stated.

Although plaintiff’s complaint alleged and plaintiff’s evidence tended to support two separate theories of recovery for his services, i.e., work performed and an account stated, defendants, the moving party, failed to state to the trial court any specific grounds for their motion for a directed verdict, as required by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Under such circumstances, defendants have failed to preserve the trial court’s denial of their motion for our review. Johnson v. Dunlop, 53 N.C. App. 312, 280 S.E. 2d 759 (1981); Builders Supplies Co. of Goldsboro, N.C. v. Gainey, 10 N.C. App. 364, 178 S.E. 2d 794 (1971); Pergerson v. Williams, 9 N.C. App. 512, 176 S.E. 2d 885 (1970); Compare Anderson v. Butler, 284 N.C. 723, 202 S.E. 2d 585 (1974).

Defendants also failed to include in the record on appeal their motion for a directed verdict or the trial court’s order denying their motion, but merely referred in their brief to the pages of the trial transcript where these transactions might be found. This does not comply with the requirements of Rule 9(b)(1)(viii) and (x) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

[207]*207Appeal dismissed.

Judges Hedrick and Phillips concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 S.E.2d 831, 64 N.C. App. 205, 1983 N.C. App. LEXIS 3214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oxendine-v-moss-ncctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack