Ward v. . Agrillo

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Ward v. . Agrillo

144 S.E. 697, 196 N.C. 95, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 289

DecidedSeptember 26, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 144 S.E. 697 (Ward v. . Agrillo) 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

Ward v. . Agrillo, 144 S.E. 697, 196 N.C. 95, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 289 (N.C. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Oueiam.

We have examined the record and case on appeal in this action with care. The assignments of error, appearing in the case on appeal, and discussed in the briefs filed in this Court upon defendant’s appeal, cannot be sustained. We find no error for which the order setting aside the verdict, as a matter of law, should be reversed. The order is affirmed.

The judge finds, as recited in the order, that it was agreed at February Term, 1928, of the Superior Court of Craven County that the court might take any action on the verdict out of term and out of the county that it could have taken during said term. Stipulations to this effect, signed by counsel, appear in the record. Both parties to the action were represented by counsel when plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict was heard and signed at Kinston, N. C., on 25 May, 1928.

Defendant’s exception to the judgment by default and inquiry, and her appeal therefrom, upon the facts appearing in the record, were abandoned. It does not appear that there is merit in the exception; the judgment by default and inquiry is valid. By virtue of said judgment plaintiffs are entitled to recover of defendant at least a nominal sum. As his Honor properly held, there was error on the trial for which the verdict should have been set aside as a matter of law. Upon the next trial the jury should be instructed that plaintiffs are entitled to recover of defendant at least nominal damages. C. S., 596, and cases cited.

Affirmed.

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

Pee Oueiam.

We have examined the record and case on appeal in this action with care. The assignments of error, appearing in the case on appeal, and discussed in the briefs filed in this Court upon defendant’s appeal, cannot be sustained. We find no error for which the order setting aside the verdict, as a matter of law, should be reversed. The order is affirmed.

The judge finds, as recited in the order, that it was agreed at February Term, 1928, of the Superior Court of Craven County that the court might take any action on the verdict out of term and out of the county that it could have taken during said term. Stipulations to this effect, signed by counsel, appear in the record. Both parties to the action were represented by counsel when plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict was heard and signed at Kinston, N. C., on 25 May, 1928.

Defendant’s exception to the judgment by default and inquiry, and her appeal therefrom, upon the facts appearing in the record, were abandoned. It does not appear that there is merit in the exception; the judgment by default and inquiry is valid. By virtue of said judgment plaintiffs are entitled to recover of defendant at least a nominal sum. As his Honor properly held, there was error on the trial for which the verdict should have been set aside as a matter of law. Upon the next trial the jury should be instructed that plaintiffs are entitled to recover of defendant at least nominal damages. C. S., 596, and cases cited.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 S.E. 697, 196 N.C. 95, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-agrillo-nc-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack