Pollock v. . Kinsey

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Pollock v. . Kinsey

129 S.E. 925, 190 N.C. 856, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 204

DecidedSeptember 30, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 129 S.E. 925 (Pollock v. . Kinsey) 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

Pollock v. . Kinsey, 129 S.E. 925, 190 N.C. 856, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 204 (N.C. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

The issues submitted to the jury and their answers thereto were as follows:

"1. Did the plaintiff furnish merchandise to S.E. Garner and J. E. Lovitt during the year 1920, at the request and upon the promise of the defendant to pay therefor? Answer: Yes.

"2. If so, in what amount, if any, is the defendant indebted to the plaintiff? Answer: $1,313.26, with interest from 1 January, 1921." *Page 857

The court below rendered judgment for plaintiff against Carrie Kinsey, exceptions and assignments of error were duly made by defendant, Carrie Kinsey, to the exclusion of certain evidence during the trial, the charge of the court and judgment, and she appealed to the Supreme Court. We heard the oral arguments and read the record and the carefully prepared briefs of counsel. We think that the court below made no error in excluding the evidence, and the charge of the court below was in accordance with law. From the entire record we can find no prejudicial or reversible error. We think the case governed by the principle laid down in Taylor v.Lee, 187 N.C. p. 393, and cases cited.

No error.

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

The issues submitted to the jury and their answers thereto were as follows:

"1. Did the plaintiff furnish merchandise to S.E. Garner and J. E. Lovitt during the year 1920, at the request and upon the promise of the defendant to pay therefor? Answer: Yes.

"2. If so, in what amount, if any, is the defendant indebted to the plaintiff? Answer: $1,313.26, with interest from 1 January, 1921." *Page 857

The court below rendered judgment for plaintiff against Carrie Kinsey, exceptions and assignments of error were duly made by defendant, Carrie Kinsey, to the exclusion of certain evidence during the trial, the charge of the court and judgment, and she appealed to the Supreme Court. We heard the oral arguments and read the record and the carefully prepared briefs of counsel. We think that the court below made no error in excluding the evidence, and the charge of the court below was in accordance with law. From the entire record we can find no prejudicial or reversible error. We think the case governed by the principle laid down in Taylor v.Lee, 187 N.C. p. 393, and cases cited.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 S.E. 925, 190 N.C. 856, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pollock-v-kinsey-nc-1925.