Bottoms v. Seabd. & R. R. Co
| Decision Date | 27 October 1891 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Bottoms v. Seaboard & R. R. Co. |
Instructions—Verdict — Conflicting Findings.
1. Since, under the procedure in North Carolina, issues are submitted to the jury, and on their findings the court adjudges the recovery, it was not error in the court to refuse defendant's request to instruct the jury that upon the evidence plaintiff could not recover.
2. An exception "to the charge as given" is too vague and indefinite to be considered on appeal.
8. In an action by plaintiff against a railroad company for injury to his child the following issues were submit el to the Jury: "(2).Was the defendant guilty of negligence in respect to the injury of plaintiff's child? Answer. Yes. (8 Was the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence in respect to the injury of his child i A Yes. (4) Was the plaintiff's child injured bj defendant's negligence? A. Yes." Held that, at the material facts found are confused, a new trial will be ordered.
Appeal from superior court, Northampton county; Henry G. Connor, Judge.
Action by Turner B. Bottoms against the Seaboard & Ronnoke Railroad Company to recover for injuries to his child. Verdict for plaintiff. Defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied, and judgment entered against it. Defendant appeals. New trial ordered.
W. H. Day and J. W. Hinsdale, for appellant.
W. W. Peebles & Son and R. B. Peebles, for appellee.
The defendant's counsel requested the court to charge (1) that upou the evidence offered by the plaintiff, he could not recover; (2) that upou the whole evidence the plaintiff could not recover, —and excepted to the refusal of the same. As the verdict, under the present procedure, is never that the plaintiffs do or do not recover, but the jury respond to issues submitted to them, and on their findings the court adjudges the recovery, such prayers are not proper, and it is not error to refuse them. Farrell v. Railroad Co., 102 N. C. 390, 9 S. E. Rep. 302; McDonald v. Carson, 94 N. C. 497.
The exception "to the charge as given" furnishes no information to the appellee or to the court, and has been repeatedly held too vague to be considered. Mc-Kinnon v. Morrison, 104 N. C. 354, 10 S. E. Rep. 513.
The folio wing issues were submitted to the jury, to which they responded, as appears by the record: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kearney v. Seaboard Air Line Ry.
... ... Railroad, 142 N.C. 120, 55 S.E. 86; Witsell v ... Railroad, 120 N.C. 557, 27 S.E. 125; Bottoms v ... Railroad, 109 N.C. 72, 13 S.E. 738), the defendant also ... attacks the instruction for error in its substance, and I ... think the point ... ...
-
Kearney v. Seabd. Air Line Ry
...held to be erroneous (Ruffin v. Railroad, 142 N. C. 120, 55 S. E. 86; Witsell v. Railroad, 120 N. C. 557, 27 S. E. 125; Bottoms v. Railroad, 109 N. C. 72, 13 S. E. 738), the defendant also attacks the instruction for error in its substance, and I think the point is well taken, and finds dir......
-
Lee v. Rhodes
... ... 345; Jernigan v. Neighbors, 195 N.C. 231, 141 S.E ... 586; Page Supply Co. v. Horton, 200 N.C. 373, 17 ... S.E.2d 493; Bottoms" v. Seaboard & R. R. Co., 109 N.C. 72, ... 13 S.E. 738; Porter v. Western N. C. R. Co., 97 N.C ... 66, 22 S.E. 581, 2 Am.St.Rep. 272 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Tucker v. Satterthwaite
...supra, and Bowen v. Whitaker, supra. The same rule is laid down in Allen v. Sallinger, 105 N. C. 333, 10 S. E. 1020; Bottoms v. Railroad Co., 109 N. C. 72, 13 S. E. 738; Allen v. Allen, 114 N. C. 121, 19 S. E. 269; Fleming v. Railroad Co., 115 N. C. 676, 20 S. E. 714. In Vaughan v. Parker, ......