Grimes v. Home Credit Co. of Kinston, 367
Decision Date | 18 October 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 367,367 |
Citation | 271 N.C. 608,157 S.E.2d 213 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | Bertie GRIMES v. HOME CREDIT COMPANY OF KINSTON, North Carolina. |
Turner & Harrison, kinston, for plaintiff appellant.
White & Aycock, Kinston, for defendant appellee.
Plaintiff's first assignment of error is:
This statement of the assignment ignores Rule 19(3) of the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court. An assignment of error to the admission Or exclusion of evidence must include so much of that testimony as will enable the Court to understand the question sought to be presented without the necessity of going beyond the assignment itself. Darden v. Bone, 254 N.C. 599, 119 S.E.2d 634; Bridges v. Graham, 246 N.C. 371, 98 S.E.2d 492; 1 Strong, N.C. Index Appeal and Error § 26 (Supp.) (1957). Notwithstanding appellant's failure to comply with the rule, because of the brevity of the record, we have considered the assignment and find it to be without merit.
The statements of 'the girl who was employed at the Home Credit Company' that she herself had almost slipped and that the janitor had waxed the floor the night before were merely narrative of past occurrences. It was, therefore, incompetent hearsay as against her employer, the defendant. Edwards v. Hamill, 266 N.C. 304, 145 S.E.2d 884; Branch v. Dempsey, 265 N.C. 733, 145 S.E.2d 395; Brown v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 217 N.C. 368, 8 S.E.2d 199. Even if this evidence had been admitted without objection, the judgment of nonsuit would have still been inevitable.
Barnes v. Hotel O. Henry Corp., 229 N.C. 730, 731--732, 51 S.E.2d 180, 181.
Accord, Hedrick v. Tigniere, 267 N.C. 62, 147 S.E.2d 550; Murrell v. Handley, 245 N.C. 559, 96 S.E.2d 717. Plaintiff's evidence, including that which was excluded, merely tends to show that the floor in defendant's place of business had been waxed and polished. Evidence that the wax had...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Davis
...been permitted to answer must be set out in the assignment. State v. Gainey, 280 N.C. 366, 185 S.E.2d 874 (1972); Grimes v. Credit Company, 271 N.C. 608, 157 S.E.2d 213 (1967); In Re Will of Adams, 268 N.C. 565, 151 S.E.2d 59 (1966). Where the court sustains an objection to evidence and the......
-
Emerson v. Great Atlantic and Pac. Tea Co., Inc.
...admissible at trial, it could not properly be considered at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. See Grimes v. Credit Company, 271 N.C. 608, 157 S.E.2d 213 (1967); Brown v. Montgomery Ward and Company, 217 N.C. 368, 8 S.E.2d 199 (1940); Staley v. Park, 202 N.C. 155, 162 S.E. 202 ......
-
State v. Staten, 259
... ... , 'When I left my girl friend's house I was going home. I didn't go home because I wasn't going to walk past ... ...
-
State v. Gainey
...does not comply with Rule 19(3) of the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court. 254 N.C. at 783, 798--800. See Grimes v. Home Credit Company, 271 N.C. 608, 157 S.E.2d 213; State v. Staten, 271 N.C. 600, 607--608, 157 S.E.2d 225, 231. Although the assignment of error does not itself specifica......