Coker v. Stevens, 7828DC1134
Citation | 43 N.C.App. 352,258 S.E.2d 794 |
Decision Date | 16 October 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 7828DC1134,7828DC1134 |
Parties | W. P. COKER, d/b/a, Coker Heating and Air Conditioning Company v. Terry E. STEVENS and wife, Martha C. Stevens. |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Bruce J. Brown, Asheville, for plaintiff-appellee.
Dameron & Burgin by E. Penn Dameron, Jr., Marion, for defendants-appellants.
Defendants assign as error: "The trial court committed prejudicial error by finding facts, making conclusions of law, and entering judgment against defendants on the unpleaded theory that the defendants had wrongfully retained funds which were owed to their general contractor." Defendants contend that plaintiff alleged in his complaint and proceeded to trial only on the theory of agency. Plaintiff did not move to amend his complaint during the course of the proceedings. We agree with defendants that prejudicial error occurred and award them a new trial.
The court, on its own motion, questioned witness O. L. Walker:
At the close of the evidence, the court stated the following:
The record reveals that this is not a case wherein the doctrine of litigation by consent applies pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 15(b), of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants objected to the introduction of the evidence as set out above and further indicated to the court that such was outside the scope of the pleadings. Plaintiff failed to move to amend his complaint to conform with the evidence as required by Rule 15(b). See Roberts v. Memorial Park, 281 N.C. 48, 187 S.E.2d 721 (1972).
The case proceeded to trial on the theory that O. L. Walker was acting as agent for defendants and that plaintiff installed the furnace in question in defendants' home by agreement with their agent. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moore v. Surles, 86-135-CIV-4.
...(C.C.N.C. 1910); see also Boone v. Chatfield, 118 N.C. 916, 24 S.E. 745 (1896); Thigpen v. Leigh, 93 N.C. 47 (1885); Coker v. Stevens, 43 N.C.App. 352, 258 S.E.2d 794 (1979); Ply-Marts, Inc. v. Phileman, 40 N.C.App. 767, 253 S.E.2d 494 (1979). From the documents filed it is obvious that nei......
- State v. Harris, 7917SC450