Piedmont Supply Co. v. Rozzell

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Piedmont Supply Co. v. Rozzell

70 S.E.2d 677, 235 N.C. 631, 1952 N.C. LEXIS 444

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 21, 1952

Docket306

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 70 S.E.2d 677 (Piedmont Supply Co. v. Rozzell) 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

Piedmont Supply Co. v. Rozzell, 70 S.E.2d 677, 235 N.C. 631, 1952 N.C. LEXIS 444 (N.C. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

YalbNtiNb, J.

The appellant assigns as errors, (1) the action of the trial judge in overruling his demurrer and denying his motion for judgment as of nonsuit; and (2) certain portions of the charge on the ground (a) that the trial judge included in his charge statements of fact neither admitted nor shown by the evidence, and (b) that the charge amounted to a peremptory instruction for the plaintiff on the first issue, although the evidence of plaintiff and defendant was in sharp conflict.

Under our decisions, there was sufficient evidence to repel the motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit and to require the submission of the case to the jury upon appropriate issues and a proper charge. Graham v. Gas. Co., 231 N.C. 680, 58 S.E. 2d 757; Donlop v. Snyder, 234 N.C. 627; Powell v. Lloyd, 234 N.C. 481.

There is, however, reversible error in the charge. When his Honor in referring to appellant’s testimony stated to the jury, “He says he was a member of the partnership in Newton under the same name, doing business in Newton, and that the same concern was doing business in Hickory,” he was in error. Nowhere in the evidence does it appear that the appellant ever admitted that he was a partner in the Catawba Pump Company at Hickory. His evidence all tends to show that the two businesses were separate firms, that he was a partner owning a one-fourth interest in the Catawba Pump Company at Newton, but not a partner in the firm of the same name at Hickory. Indeed, the first item of plaintiff’s evidence asserts that there were two partnerships by the same name, one located in Hickory and the other in Newton.

The applicable rule of law is, while an inaccurate statement of facts contained in the evidence should be called to the attention of the court in order that the error might be corrected, a statement of a material fact not shown in the evidence constitutes reversible error. Steelman v. Benfield, 228 N.C. 651, 46 S.E. 2d 829; S. v. Wyont, 218 N.C. 505, 11 S.E. 2d 473; S. v. Love, 187 N.C. 32, 121 S.E. 20; Smith v. Hosiery Mill, 212 N.C. 661, 194 S.E. 83; Curlee v. Scales, 223 N.C. 788, 28 S.E. 2d 576.

There was some evidence that the appellant was a partner in the Catawba Pump Company and that this firm did business both in Hickory *634 and in Newton, but tbis was denied by tbe appellant and upon sucb conflicting evidence a peremptory instruction in favor of tbe plaintiff was erroneous. Boutten v. R. R., 128 N.C. 337, 38 S.E. 920; R. R. v. Lumber Co., 185 N.C. 227, 117 S.E. 50; Porter v. Construction Co., 195 N.C. 328, 142 S.E. 27; Kearney v. Thomas, 225 N.C. 156, 33 S.E. 2d 871; Perry v. Trust Co., 226 N.C. 667, 40 S.E. 2d 116; Morris v. Tate, 230 N.C. 29, 51 S.E. 2d 892; Stallings v. Insurance Co., 231 N.C. 732, 58 S.E. 2d 716.

For tbe errors pointed out, there must be a new trial, and it is so ordered.

New trial.

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

YalbNtiNb, J.

The appellant assigns as errors, (1) the action of the trial judge in overruling his demurrer and denying his motion for judgment as of nonsuit; and (2) certain portions of the charge on the ground (a) that the trial judge included in his charge statements of fact neither admitted nor shown by the evidence, and (b) that the charge amounted to a peremptory instruction for the plaintiff on the first issue, although the evidence of plaintiff and defendant was in sharp conflict.

Under our decisions, there was sufficient evidence to repel the motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit and to require the submission of the case to the jury upon appropriate issues and a proper charge. Graham v. Gas. Co., 231 N.C. 680, 58 S.E. 2d 757; Donlop v. Snyder, 234 N.C. 627; Powell v. Lloyd, 234 N.C. 481.

There is, however, reversible error in the charge. When his Honor in referring to appellant’s testimony stated to the jury, “He says he was a member of the partnership in Newton under the same name, doing business in Newton, and that the same concern was doing business in Hickory,” he was in error. Nowhere in the evidence does it appear that the appellant ever admitted that he was a partner in the Catawba Pump Company at Hickory. His evidence all tends to show that the two businesses were separate firms, that he was a partner owning a one-fourth interest in the Catawba Pump Company at Newton, but not a partner in the firm of the same name at Hickory. Indeed, the first item of plaintiff’s evidence asserts that there were two partnerships by the same name, one located in Hickory and the other in Newton.

The applicable rule of law is, while an inaccurate statement of facts contained in the evidence should be called to the attention of the court in order that the error might be corrected, a statement of a material fact not shown in the evidence constitutes reversible error. Steelman v. Benfield, 228 N.C. 651, 46 S.E. 2d 829; S. v. Wyont, 218 N.C. 505, 11 S.E. 2d 473; S. v. Love, 187 N.C. 32, 121 S.E. 20; Smith v. Hosiery Mill, 212 N.C. 661, 194 S.E. 83; Curlee v. Scales, 223 N.C. 788, 28 S.E. 2d 576.

There was some evidence that the appellant was a partner in the Catawba Pump Company and that this firm did business both in Hickory *634 and in Newton, but tbis was denied by tbe appellant and upon sucb conflicting evidence a peremptory instruction in favor of tbe plaintiff was erroneous. Boutten v. R. R., 128 N.C. 337, 38 S.E. 920; R. R. v. Lumber Co., 185 N.C. 227, 117 S.E. 50; Porter v. Construction Co., 195 N.C. 328, 142 S.E. 27; Kearney v. Thomas, 225 N.C. 156, 33 S.E. 2d 871; Perry v. Trust Co., 226 N.C. 667, 40 S.E. 2d 116; Morris v. Tate, 230 N.C. 29, 51 S.E. 2d 892; Stallings v. Insurance Co., 231 N.C. 732, 58 S.E. 2d 716.

For tbe errors pointed out, there must be a new trial, and it is so ordered.

New trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 S.E.2d 677, 235 N.C. 631, 1952 N.C. LEXIS 444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piedmont-supply-co-v-rozzell-nc-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack