Rigsbee v. Perkins
| Decision Date | 30 June 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 667,667 |
| Citation | 242 N.C. 502,87 S.E.2d 926 |
| Parties | M. M. RIGSBEE and wife, Julia E. Rigsbee, v. Carl H. PERKINS. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Holt, McNairy, Harris & Smith, Greensboro, for plaintiffs.
Harry R. Stanley, Greensboro, for defendant.
The defendant has brought forward only one assignment of error. By it he urges that the trial court made errors of omission by failing in two particulars to declare and explain the law arising on the evidence are required by G.S. § 1-180. The questions sought to be raised by the assignment of error need not be discussed for the reason that the assignment does not appear to be supported by an exception previously noted, as required by our rules. See Rules 19(3) and 21, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N.C. 554.
The only exception to the charge is Exception No. 3, as to which the record discloses that the defendant 'excepts to the whole charge of the court between the letters (A) and (B).' Between the letters (A) and (B) appears the entire charge of the court, approximately fifteen pages in length. The exception does not specify wherein it is claimed the trial judge erred in instructing the jury. Therefore, the exception is broadside and is wholly ineffectual to support the assignment of error as brought forward. Rawls v. Lupton, 193 N.C. 428, 137 S.E. 175; Price v. City of Monroe, 234 N.C. 666, 68 S.E.2d 283; Poniros v. Nello L. Teer Co., 236 N.C. 145, 72 S.E.2d 9. Besides, an exception to an instruction as given does not ordinarily challenge the omission of the court to charge further on the same or another aspect of the case. Peek v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., 242 N.C. 1, 16, 86 S.E.2d 745, 756; Karpf v. Adams, 237 N.C. 106, 74 S.E.2d 325; Runyon v. Adams, 237 N.C. 106, 114, 74 S.E.2d 325, 330.
Thus it is manifest that the assignment of error on which the appeal is predicated is not supported by an exception. And the rule is that only an exception previously noted in the case on appeal will serve to present a question of law for this Court to decide. State v. Gordon, 241 N.C. 356, 85 S.E.2d 322; Moore v. Crosswell, 240 N.C. 473, 82 S.E.2d 208. The function of the assignments of error is to group and bring forward such of the exceptions previously made and noted in the case on appeal as the appellant desires to preserve and present to this Court. Suits v. Old Equity Life Ins. Co., 241 N.C. 483, 85 S.E.2d 602; Dobias v. White, 240 N.C. 680, 83 S.E.2d 785. An assignment of error, as in the case at hand, not supported by an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waddell v. Carson
...assigns this as error. However, this assignment of error 67 has no exception to support it, and will be disregarded. Rigsbee v. Perkins, 242 N.C. 502, 87 S.E. 2d 926; Suits v. Old Equity Life Ins. Co., 241 N.C. 483, 85 S.E.2d 602. Many of these assignments of error relate to the testimony o......
-
Webb v. Gaskins, 102
...on appeal. Our cases to that effect are legion. Barnette v. Woody, 242 N.C. 424, 88 S.E.2d 223, and cases there cited; Rigsbee v. Perkins, 242 N.C. 502, 87 S.E.2d 926; Tynes v. Davis, 244 N.C. 528, 94 S.E.2d 496; Holden v. Holden, 245 N.C. 1, 95 S.E.2d 118; In re McWhirter, 248 N.C. 324, 10......
-
Barnette v. Woody
...81, 147 S.E. 735. This Court has universally held that an assignment of error not supported by an exception is ineffectual. Rigsbee v. Perkins, N.C., 87 S.E.2d 926; State v. Howell, 239 N.C. 78, 79 S.E.2d 235; State v. Moore, 222 N.C. 356, 23 S.E.2d 31; Smith v. Dillon Supply Co., 214 N.C. ......
-
State v. Jones
...of law is presented to this Court for decision. Knutton v. Cofield, 273 N.C. 355, 160 S.E.2d 29; Tynes v. Davis, supra; Rigsbee v. Perkins, 242 N.C. 502, 87 S.E.2d 926. See Rules 19(3) and 21, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 254 N.C. 783. Nevertheless, due to the seriousness of the ......