Samuel v. Evans, 703
| Decision Date | 05 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 703,703 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Robert William SAMUEL v. Nick EVANS. John C. COOPER, v. Nick EVANS, Original Defendant, and Robert William Samuel, Additional Defendant. |
Boyan & Wilson, High Point, for Robert William Samuel, plaintiff, appellant.
Morgan, Byerly, Post & Keziah, High Point, for John C. Cooper, plaintiff, appellant.
Haworth, Riggs, Kuhn & Haworth, High Point, for Nick Evans, defendant, appellee.
Both plaintiffs assign as error the denial of plaintiff Samuel's motion to dissmiss original defendant Evans' cross action for contribution against him as additional defendant. The ruling of the court was obviously correct. Samuel's testimony that he approached and entered the intersection at 40 MPH and that, after seeing Evans stopped at the intersection, he traveled 100 feet without again observing the Evans car tended to establish, on the part of Samuel, concurring negligence which was a proximate cause of the collision. The materiality of this challenged ruling, however, is not apparent, since the jury's answer to the fourth issue exonerated defendant Evans of liability.
Plaintiffs took seven exceptions to his Honor's charge. Only one, however, is assigned as error in complaince with Rule 21 of the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court. When an exception relates to the charge, that portion to which the exception is taken must be set out in the particular assignment of error. A mere reference to the exception number and the page number of the record where the exception appears--plaintiffs' procedure here--will not present the alleged error for review. Pratt v. Bishop, 257 N.C. 486, 499, 426 S.E.2d 597, 607; Darden v. Bone, 254 N.C. 599, 601, 119 S.E.2d 634, 636; E. L. Lowie & Co. v. Atkins, 245 N.C. 98, 95 S.E.2d 271. The requirements of the rules and the reasons therefor have been so often reiterated that the recurring necessity for restatement baffles our understanding. We refer counsel specifically to State v. Dishman, 249 N.C. 759, 761, 107 S.E.2d 750, 751; accord, State v. Wilson, 263 N.C. 533, 139 S.E.2d 736.
In view of the outcome of this case we have examined each exception taken, and we have found each to be without merit. During the course of this examination, however, we have noted that throughout the charge the judge treated the right of plaintiff Cooper to recover from defendant Evans as being synonymous with the right of plaintiff Samuel. The jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Baldwin
...contention as to what the court should have charged.' State v. Kirby, supra; State v. Wilson, supra; Samuel v. Evans and Cooper v. Evans, 264 N.C. 393, 141 S.E.2d 627. The requirements of the rules and the reasons for them have been reiterated throughout our Reports. These rules are mandato......
-
State v. Kirby
...254 N.C. 599, 601, 119 S.E.2d 634, 636; E. L. Lowie & Co. v. Atkins, 245 N.C. 98, 95 S.E.2d 271.' Samuel v. Evans and Cooper v. Evans, 264 N.C. 393, 141 S.E.2d 627. Defendant's next assignment discussed in the brief is labeled 'Group XIII.' Under it is the following language: 'The court bel......
-
State v. Little
...reference in the assignment of error to the record page where the asserted error may be discovered is not sufficient. Samuel v. Evans, 264 N.C. 393, 141 S.E.2d 627; Darden v. Bone, 254 N.C. 599, 119 S.E.2d 634; Hunt v. Davis, 248 N.C. 69, 102 S.E.2d 405; Lowie & Co. v. Atkins, 245 N.C. 98, ......
-
State v. Self
...of the record where the exception appears . . . will not present the alleged error for review. . . .' Samuel v. Evans and Cooper v. Evans, 264 N.C. 393, 141 S.E.2d 627.' However, an examination of the record in the case at bar discloses that the court correctly charged the 'Now ladies and g......