Cherry v. Hodges
| Decision Date | 05 March 1924 |
| Docket Number | 66. |
| Citation | 121 S.E. 538,187 N.C. 368 |
| Parties | CHERRY ET AL. v. HODGES ET AL. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Washington County; Connor, Judge.
Action by G. J. Cherry and others against Ida B. Hodges and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. No error.
Civil action to recover damages for an alleged wrongful trespass, and for restraining order to prevent further trespassing in the future. Upon denial of liability and issues joined, there was a verdict and judgment for the defendants, from which the plaintiffs appeal, assigning errors.
A losing party may not select detached portions of the charge, even if in themselves subject to criticism, and assign errors as to them, when, if considered with other portions, they are readily explained, and the charge in its entirety appears to be correct.
Van B. Martin, of Plymouth, and Aydlett & Simpson, of Elizabeth City, for appellants.
W. L. Whitley, of Plymouth, for appellees.
The controversy, on trial, narrowed itself principally to questions of fact, which the jury alone could determine. A careful perusal of the record leaves us with the impression that the case has been tried substantially in conformity to the law bearing on the subject, and no sufficient reason has been found for disturbing the result below.
Appellants' chief exceptions relate to the admission and exclusion of evidence and to portions of the charge. We have found no ruling or action on the part of the trial court which we apprehend should be held for reversible error.
It is now settled law that the charge of the court must be considered and examined by us, not disconnectedly, but as a whole, or at least the whole of what was said regarding any special phase of the case or the law. The losing party will not be permitted to select detached portions of the charge, even if in themselves subject to criticism, and assign errors as to them, when, if considered with other portions, they are readily explained, and the charge in its entirety appears to be correct. Each portion of the charge must be considered with reference to what precedes and follows it. In other words, it must be taken in its setting. The charge should be viewed contextually and not disjointedly. Any other rule would be unjust, both to the trial judge and to the parties.
The verdict and judgment must be upheld.
No error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunt v. Eure
...bring about prejudicial error. In the instant case, construing the charge contextually and not in detached portions (Cherry v. Hodges, 187 N. C. 368, 121 S.[127 S.E. 595] E. 538; In re Will of Hardee, 187 N. O. 381, 121 S. E. 667), we perceive that the trial court, in charging the jury, "if......
-
Hunt v. Eure
... ... prejudicial error ... In the ... instant case, construing the charge contextually and not in ... detached portions ( Cherry v. Hodges, 187 N.C. 368, ... [127 S.E. 595] ... E. 538; ... In re Will of Hardee, 187 N.C. 381, 121 S.E. 667), ... we ... ...
-
Speas v. Merchants' Bank & Trust Co. of Winston-Salem
...been overruled on the principle that the court's charge is to be construed contextually, as a whole, and not disjointedly. Cherry v. Hodges, 187 N.C. 368, 121 S.E. 538. is to be considered as a whole in the same connected way in which it was given, and upon the presumption that the jury did......
-
McDaniel v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry.
...slight deviations in detached portions will not be held for reversible error. Exum v. Lynch, 188 N.C. 397, 125 S.E. 15; Cherry v. Hodges, 187 N.C. 368, 121 S.E. 538; In re Hardee, 187 N.C. 381, 121 S.E. 667. Such is undoubtedly the correct rule, as established by our decisions; but we do no......