Coxe v. Singleton

• Decision Date: 24 October 1905
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: COXE. v. SINGLETON et al.

139 N.C. 361

51 S.E. 1019

COXE.

v.SINGLETON et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 24, 1905.

1. Trial—Issues—Preparation.

Where there were no written pleadings in the case, it was the duty of the court to frame the issues from the evidence, so as to develop the whole case and present to the jury the disputed issues of fact.

2. Sales — Contract—Breach—Actions—Issues.

Where, in an action for breach of a contract to purchase certain lumber at a stipulated price, there were no written pleadings, but plaintiff alleged and offered evidence that he sold to defendant certain lumber at a price stipulated, but that defendant refused to take and pay for the same, while defendant denied the contract and that plaintiff had performed it, alleging that the lumber tendered was worthless, issues submitted to the jury as to whether defendant contracted with plaintiff to purchase lumber as alleged, and, if so, whether plaintiff complied with the contract and the terms thereof, and calling for a finding as to the value of the lumber tendered for delivery under the contract, were sufficient to cover the entire controversy.

3. Witnesses—Character—Evidence.

Where a witness had testified on cross-examination to the good character of one of the defendants, plaintiff was not entitled to ask the witness on redirect examination if he had not heard that such defendant "padded his pay roll" at a certain mill and also had raped a negro girl.

4. Trial — Verdict — Impeachment — Affidavit of Jurors.

A verdict cannot be impeached by written statements of several jurors that they did not fully understand the issues and the legal effect of their findings.

5. Same—Special Findings—Effect.

Where, in an action for breach of contract the jury, in response to issues, found that defendant had contracted to purchase lumber from plaintiff as alleged, but that plaintiff had failed to comply with his part of the contract, the fact that the jury also unnecessarily answered a further issue that the lumber hauled by plaintiff for delivery under the contract was of the value of $5 only, the contract price being $20, was conclusive that the jury intended to find that plaintiff had not performed his part of the contract.

Appeal from Superior Court, Anson County; Long, Judge.

Action by Thomas C. Coxe against Robert Singleton and others. A judgment was entered dismissing the action on appeal from a justice of the peace, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The plaintiff alleged that he sold the defendants certain walnut lumber at a stipulated price, $20, and that the defendants refused to take and pay for the same. The defendants denied the contract, and also that the plaintiff had performed it alleging that the lumber tendered was worthless. The court submitted the following issues: "(1) Did defendants contract with plaintiff to purchase lumber from him, as alleged by plaintiff? A. Yes. (2) If so, did plaintiff comply with his part of the contract and the terms thereof, as alleged? A. No. (3) What was the value of the lumber hauled by plaintiff to defendants for delivery under the alleged contract? A. $5. Upon the finding of the jury the court dismissed the action, and the plaintiff appealed.

Fred J. Coxe, for appellant.

BROWN, J. 1. The plaintiff excepted to the issues submitted. They plainly cover the controversy between the parties as disclosed by the evidence. The issues were sufficient to enable the jury to intelligently find the facts in dispute and to enable the plaintiff to present every view of the evidence contended for by him. It is true the issues arise upon the pleadings, and...