Virgin Cotton Mills v. Abernathy
This text of 20 S.E. 522 (Virgin Cotton Mills v. Abernathy) 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.
Opinion
The first and second exceptions for failure to submit the issue requested, and for issues actually submitted, come too late after verdict. The Code, § 412 (2); Phifer v. Alexander, 97 N. C., 335; Taylor v. Plummer, 105 N. C., 56; Lowe v. Elliott, 107 N. C., 718. The issues are, however, in fact sufficient under the rule approved in Humphrey v. Church, 109 N. C., 132. The “general denial” cured any failure to allege tender of the certificate, as the only reason for requiring a tender before action brought is to throw the costs of an unnecessary action upon the plaintiff. Waddell v. Swann, 91 N. C., 108; Moore v. Garner, 101 N. C., 374. Besides, this is not a purchase from another, but from the company itself, and in effect a subscription to its capital stock. The prayers for instruction, so far as correct and relevant to the case, were given. There was no ground for the motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, which is only granted when the answer confesses a cause of action, and the matter relied on in avoidance is insufficient. Walker v. Scott, 106 N. C., 56. No Error.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
20 S.E. 522, 115 N.C. 402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/virgin-cotton-mills-v-abernathy-nc-1894.