Gilbert v. Moore, 626
| Decision Date | 14 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 626,626 |
| Citation | 268 N.C. 679,151 S.E.2d 577 |
| Parties | Sue Johnson GILBERT v. Blanche H. HOORE. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Bryan & Bryan, Robert C. Bryan, D. K. Stewart, Dunn, for plaintiff appellee.
Charles R. Williams, Robert B. Morgan, Robert H. Jones, Gerald Arnold, Morgan, Williams & Jones, Lillington, for defendant appellant.
The defendant's Assignment of Error No. 1 involves the court's denial of the motion to nonsuit. The evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff is sufficient to go to the jury and to sustain the verdict. Bennett v. Young, 266 N.C. 164, 145 S.E.2d 853; Bongardt v. Frink, 265 N.C. 130, 143 S.E.2d 286; Moss v. Tate, 264 N.C. 544, 142 S.E.2d 161. The motion was properly denied.
Assignment of Error No. 2 with respect to the exclusion of evidence requires a voyage of discovery through the record in order to ascertain what is involved. Balint v. Grayson, 256 N.C. 490, 124 S.E.2d 364; Nichols v. McFarland, 249 N.C. 125, 105 S.E.2d 294; Steelman v. Benfield, 228 N.C. 651, 46 S.E.2d 829. Actually the voyage of discovery discloses nothing of consequence. Assignment of Error No. 2 is not sustained.
The defendant places her main reliance for a new trial on the court's refusal to set aside the verdict because of the improper and prejudicial remarks to the jury 'which (according to the defendant's brief) implied that the defendant had certain limits to his (sic) liability insurance.' The remarks to which the assignment is addressed are quoted in the statement of facts. By inference, at least, it appears the presiding judge did not hear the remarks. However, in the brief, defendant's counsel admitted that (Emphasis added.)
By failing to move for a mistrial and by deciding to leave the jury uninstructed further with reference to the argument, the defendant took her chances on a favorable verdict. She may not be heard to complain when the verdict was returned against her. The rule in such cases is stated by Stacy, J., later C.J., in Allen v. Garibaldi, 187 N.C. 798, 123 S.E. 66: The ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kirby
...error relied upon without the necessity of going beyond the assignment itself to ascertain the question to be debated. Gilbert v. Moore, 268 N.C. 679, 151 S.E.2d 577; Long v. Honeycutt, 268 N.C. 33, 149 S.E.2d 579. 'The assignment must be so specific that the court is given some real aid, a......
-
Singleton v. Stewart
...Court require that the appellant group his exceptions and state clearly and briefly his individual assignments of error. Gilbert v. Moore, 268 N.C. 679, 151 S.E.2d 577; Long v. Honeycutt, 268 N.C. 33, 149 S.E.2d 579. Appellant neglected to do this. Therefore, in order to apply the above-sta......
-
Lancaster v. Smith
...assignment of error to the record page where the asserted error may be discovered is not sufficient. * * *' See also Gilbert v. Moore, 268 N.C. 679, 151 S.E.2d 577 (1966); State v. Oliver, 268 N.C. 280, 150 S.E.2d 445 (1966); Long v. Honeycutt, 268 N.C. 33, 149 S.E.2d 579 (1966); Nationwide......
- Game v. Charles Stores Co., 524