Coulbourn v. Armstrong

• Decision Date: 21 March 1956
• Docket Number: No. 163,163
• Citation: Coulbourn v. Armstrong, 243 N.C. 663, 91 S.E.2d 912 (N.C. 1956)
• Parties: John M. COULBOURN v. Mary Louis ARMSTRONG.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Page 912

91 S.E.2d 912

243 N.C. 663

John M. COULBOURN v.Mary Louis ARMSTRONG.

No. 163

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 21, 1956

Herbert B. Edens, Windsor, Stuart A. Curtis, Ahoskie, and Gerald F. White, Elizabeth City, for plaintiffappellee.

Pritchett & Cooke, Windsor, for defendantappellant.

BARNHILL, Chief Justice.

The defendant excepts to the judgment entered and assigns the same as error.This and related assignments of error must be sustained.

An exception to a judgment raises the question whether any error appears on the face of the record.National Surety Corporation v. Sharpe, 233 N.C. 642, 65 S.E.2d 138;Rader v. Queen City Coach Co., 225 N.C. 537, 35 S.E.2d 609.This includes the question whether the facts found and admitted are sufficient to support the judgment.Roach v. Pritchett, 228 N.C. 747, 47 S.E.2d 20, and cases cited.

It is the duty of the judge, either of his own motion or at the suggestion of counsel, to submit such issues as are necessary to settle the material controversies arising on the pleadings, and they, together with the answers thereto, must be sufficient to support a judgment disposing of the whole case.G.S. § 1-200;Griffin v. United Services Life Ins. Co., 225 N.C. 684, 36 S.E.2d 225, and cases cited;Carland v. Allison, 221 N.C. 120, 19 S.E.2d 245;Cathey v. Shope, 238 N.C. 345, 78 S.E.2d 135;Wheeler v. Wheeler, 239 N.C. 646, 80 S.E. 2d 755.

This rule applies to new matter alleged in the answer.Griffin v. United Services Life Ins. Co., supra, and cases cited.

Furthermore, a verdict should be certain and import a definite meaning free from ambiguity and sufficient in form and substance to support a judgment which is definite in terms and capable of execution.G.S. § 1-200;Gibson v. Central Mfrs' Mut. Ins. Co., 232 N.C. 712, 62 S.E.2d 320;Edge v. North State Feldspar Corp., 212 N.C. 246, 193 S.E.2.

When the verdicts on the first, third, and fifth issues are considered in the light of these requirements, it is quite apparent that they are too vague, uncertain, and ambiguous to support a valid and enforceable judgment.It is equally clear that the judgment entered is so indefin?e and uncertain that it will not support an enforceable execution.The facts which gave rise to the controversy between the parties are as undetermined and unsettled as they were before fore any verdict had been rendered except as to the fact defendant has in her possession some article or articles of personal property--uncertain in number and kind--described in the complaint and claimed by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff alleges that the property described in the complaint is wrongfully detained by the defendant.This the defendant denies.Non constat the plaintiff is the owner of the property as alleged, it does not necessarily follow that the defendant is in the wrongful possession thereof.Yet there was no issue submitted to the jury in respect thereto and the jury has not found that the defendant is in the wrongful possession of any jart of the property in controversy.

Likewise, plaintiff alleges that on 2 December 1952he and the defendant entered into a separation agreement which is duly recorded in the Bertie County Registry, but that on 18 December 1952they became reconciled and lived together as man and wife for about ten days.The defendant admits the separation agreement, but denies that she and plaintiff ever were thereafter reconciled or lived together as man and wife, and she testified that the property in controversy was conveyed to her in the separation agreement.These allegations and this evidence raise a serious issue as to the right of the plaintiff to recover herein.Yet no issue was submitted in respect thereto.

Furthermore, the defendant in her...