T. L. Edge v. North State Feldspar Corp.

193 S.E. 2, 212 N.C. 246, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 285
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided October 13, 1937·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The verdict is uncertain or ambiguous. Wood v. Jones, 198 N. C., 356, 151 S. E., 732. It is in the alternative. Pearce v. Fisher, 133 N. C., 333, 45 S. E., 638. Its inconclusiveness necessitates another hearing. Plotkin v. Bond Co., 200 N. C., 590, 157 S. E., 870; Bank v. Broom Co., 188 N. C., 508, 125 S. E., 12; Holler v. Tel. Co., 149 N. C., 336, 63 S. E., 92. “A verdict finding matter uncertainly or ambiguously, is insufficient, and no judgment shall be given thereon.” Coke on Littleton, 227, quoted with approval in Crews v. Crews, 64 N. C., 536. “It is misleading to embody in one issue two propositions as to which the jury might give different responses.” Emery v. R. R., 102 N. C., 209, 9 S. E., 139; Carey v. Carey, 108 N. C., 267, 12 S. E., 1038; Mfg. Co. v. Assur. Co., 106 N. C., 28, 10 S. E., 1057; DeHart v. Jenkins, 211 N. C., 314, 190 S. E., 218.

A verdict, whether upon one or many issues, should be certain and determinative of the controversy. Plotkin v. Bond Co., supra; Chapman-Hunt Co. v. Board of Education, 198 N. C., 111, 150 S. E., 713; Bank v. Broom Co., supra; McAdoo v. R. R., 105 N. C., 140, 11 S. E., 316; Emery v. R. R., supra.

Here, the alternative verdict éstablishes neither proposition with certainty or definiteness, as the evidence of mutual mistake, if any, is very slight, and the sufficiency of the allegation of fraud is quite doubtful, if not deficient. Pearce v. Fisher, supra.

*248 Nor is the verdict capable of interpretation so as to support the judgment quod recuperet, by proper reference to the pleadings, the evidence, the admissions of the parties, and the charge of the court. Newbern v. Gordon, 201 N.C., 817, 160 S. E., 182; Short v. Kaltman, 192 N. C., 154, 134 S. E., 425; Kannan v. Assad, 182 N. C., 77, 108 S. E., 383. The rights of the parties have not been sufficiently determined.

New trial.

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

T. L. Edge v. North State Feldspar Corp., 193 S.E. 2, 212 N.C. 246, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 285 (N.C. 1937).

193 S.E. 2 (T. L. Edge v. North State Feldspar Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stacy v. Jedco Construction, Inc.
457 S.E.2d 875 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1995)
Edwards v. Hardin
439 S.E.2d 808 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1994)
Smith v. Childs
437 S.E.2d 500 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
Foy v. Spinks
414 S.E.2d 87 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1992)
Connor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
143 S.E.2d 98 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965)
Coulbourn v. Armstrong
91 S.E.2d 912 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
Seaboard Air Line Railroad v. Gill
227 F.2d 64 (Fourth Circuit, 1955)
Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company v. Tom Gill
227 F.2d 64 (Fourth Circuit, 1955)
Gibson v. Central Manufacturers' Mutual Insurance
62 S.E.2d 320 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)