Bowman v. Fidelity Trust & Development Co.
| Decision Date | 01 December 1915 |
| Docket Number | 287. |
| Citation | 87 S.E. 46,170 N.C. 301 |
| Parties | BOWMAN v. FIDELITY TRUST & DEVELOPMENT CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Hanover County; Rountree, Judge.
Action by G. A. P. Bowman against the Fidelity Trust & Development Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant excepted and appealed. New trial granted.
Instruction singling out one witness and making the verdict of the jury depend upon his evidence alone, and upon only portions of that, held reversible error.
There was allegation, with evidence, on part of plaintiff, that in May, 1912, he entered into a contract for a year's service in insurance work for defendant company at a specified compensation; that he was wrongfully discharged during the continuance of the contract, and, having waited till the year expired, sued for damages for breach, to wit the contract amount, less amount earned by him during the year, etc. Defendant denied a breach of the contract, and alleged, further, that the contract between the parties had been voluntarily surrendered and canceled and all rights growing out of same satisfactorily adjusted, and offered evidence to support its position.
On issues submitted, the jury rendered the following verdict:
Judgment on the verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepted and appealed.
C. D Weeks and J. D. Bellamy & Son, all of Wilmington, for appellant.
Kenan & Stacy, of Wilmington, for appellee.
In the charge of his honor on the first issue he said, among other things:
"The court charges you that, if you believe the evidence of Mr. Chadwick, who is an officer of the company, familiar with its affairs, you will answer that issue 'Yes,' irrespective of the testimony of the plaintiff, who also says that the contract was breached by the defendant."
Again, after a very careful statement of the position of the parties plaintiff and defendant on the other features of the case, he says:
"Remember the court charges you, if you believe Chadwick's testimony, you will answer the first issue 'Yes,' " etc.
True this witness, Chadwick, was an officer of defendant company, and had testified in its behalf, but, in our opinion, while...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rhinehart
... ... Selma Cotton Mills, 171 N.C. 222, 88 S.E. 242; ... Bowman v. Fidelity Trust & Dev. Co., 170 N.C. 301, ... 87 S.E. 46; Withers v ... ...
-
Halsey v. Snell
...claim, or that such evidence was without significance. Taylor v. Meadows, 182 N.C. 266, 267, 108 S.E. 755; Bowman v. Trust Co., 170 N.C. 301, 87 S.E. 46; Jackson v. Commissioners, 76 N.C. 282; Anderson v. Steamboat Co., 64 N.C. 399. Upon the errors noted the plaintiff is entitled to a new t......
- Garsed v. Garsed
-
Bowman v. Fidelity Trust & Development Co.
...of the contract, and contended that he was wrongfully discharged by the defendant. The case was in this court on a former appeal. 170 N.C. 302, 87 S.E. 46. The jury in response to the found that the contract described in the complaint had been made, but that the parties to said contract the......