Williams v. . Forrest

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Williams v. . Forrest

165 S.E. 679, 203 N.C. 273, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 376

DecidedOctober 5, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 165 S.E. 679 (Williams v. . Forrest) 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

Williams v. . Forrest, 165 S.E. 679, 203 N.C. 273, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 376 (N.C. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

¥e have examined the exceptions and assignments of error made by defendants, as to the exclusion of certain evidence offered by defendants, and do not think they can be sustained. If the evidence was competent, it does not seem to be to any extent material and we do not think the exclusion of same would have affected the verdict, and therefore prejudicial. The plaintiff’s action for breach of contract against the defendants was for $639.02, and there was evidence to that effect, the jury gave only $172.99.

The exceptions and assignments of error as to the charge cannot be sustained. Some exceptions were made to contentions, and, if erroneous, *274 the matter should have been called to the attention of the court at the time, so that correction could have been made. As this was not done, the exceptions and assignments of error cannot be considered. The charge was full and explicit and did not impinge on C. S., 564 by giving an opinion as to whether a fact is fully or sufficiently proven, this being the province of the jury to determine.

The whole matter was one of fact to be determined by the jury. The jury has decided for plaintiff against defendants, and as we find no error in law, we cannot disturb the judgment rendered on the verdict. ¥e find

No error.

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

Per Curiam.

¥e have examined the exceptions and assignments of error made by defendants, as to the exclusion of certain evidence offered by defendants, and do not think they can be sustained. If the evidence was competent, it does not seem to be to any extent material and we do not think the exclusion of same would have affected the verdict, and therefore prejudicial. The plaintiff’s action for breach of contract against the defendants was for $639.02, and there was evidence to that effect, the jury gave only $172.99.

The exceptions and assignments of error as to the charge cannot be sustained. Some exceptions were made to contentions, and, if erroneous, *274 the matter should have been called to the attention of the court at the time, so that correction could have been made. As this was not done, the exceptions and assignments of error cannot be considered. The charge was full and explicit and did not impinge on C. S., 564 by giving an opinion as to whether a fact is fully or sufficiently proven, this being the province of the jury to determine.

The whole matter was one of fact to be determined by the jury. The jury has decided for plaintiff against defendants, and as we find no error in law, we cannot disturb the judgment rendered on the verdict. ¥e find

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 S.E. 679, 203 N.C. 273, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-forrest-nc-1932.