Clark v. Henderson

• Decision Date: 19 December 1930
• Docket Number: 603.
• Parties: CLARK et ux. v. HENDERSON et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

156 S.E. 144

200 N.C. 86

CLARK et ux. v. HENDERSON et al.

No. 603.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 19, 1930

Appeal from Superior Court, Madison County; MacRae, Special Judge.

Action by R. H. Clark and wife against Saphronia Henderson and others. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal.

No error.

Assignment of error to judgment for defendants in action to recover land presents nothing, where judgment is supported by verdict.

This is an action to recover possession of land upon the allegation in the complaint that plaintiffs are the owners and entitled to the possession of the land described therein. This allegation is denied by defendants in their answer.

The first issue submitted to the jury was answered as follows: "1. Are the plaintiffs the owners and entitled to the possession of the land described in the complaint? Answer, No."

From judgment on the verdict that plaintiffs are not the owners, and are not entitled to recover possession of the land described in the complaint, plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.

J. Coleman Ramsey and John H. McElroy, both of Marshall, for appellants.

John A. Hendricks and Guy V. Roberts, both of Marshall, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The only assignment of error set out in the transcript filed in this court on plaintiffs' appeal is based on their exception to the judgment. There is no error in the judgment. It is supported by the verdict.

The contention of plaintiffs that there was error in the instruction of the court to the jury with respect to the first issue, although discussed in the brief filed for plaintiffs in this court, cannot be considered, for the reason that this contention is not presented by an assignment of error made as required by the rules of this court. See Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court. 192 N.C. 839, rule 19, § 3.

No error.