Tynes v. Davis, 37
| Decision Date | 26 September 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 37,37 |
| Citation | 94 S.E.2d 496,244 N.C. 528 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Allie H. TYNES v. Charles DAVIS. |
Critcher & Gurganus and Hugh G. Horton, Williamston, for defendant, appellant.
Lucas, Rand & Rose, Wilson, for plaintiff, appellee.
An assignment of error not supported by an exception is ineffectual. Barnette v. Woody, 242 N.C. 424, 88 S.E.2d 223. Here no exception appears in the entire case on appeal. Hence, there is no basis for the assignments of error appellant attempts to set forth; and no question of law is presented to this Court for decision. 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, 221 N.C. 554, 558.
The judgment, supported by pleadings, evidence and verdict, will not be disturbed.
Apart from the foregoing, inspection of the record discloses that the case was well and fairly tried in accordance with settled legal principles.
No error.
JOHNSON, J., not sitting.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knutton v. Cofield, 194
...as required by Rule 19(3) and Rule 21, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, supra; State v. Strickland, supra; Tynes v. Davis, 244 N.C. 528, 94 S.E.2d 496; Barnette v. Woody, 242 N.C. 424, 88 S.E.2d 223. Even so, we have examined the complaint and in our opinion it states a good cause of......
-
Webb v. Gaskins, 102
...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, 103 S.E.2d 293; State v. Corl, 250 N.C. 262, 108 S......
-
State v. Jones
...N.C. 411, 168 S.E.2d 345; State v. Thompson, 267 N.C. 653, 148 S.E.2d 613; State v. Maness, 264 N.C. 358, 141 S.E.2d 470; Tynes v. Davis, 244 N.C. 528, 94 S.E.2d 496; 3 Strong's M.C.Index 2d, Criminal Law § 161, p. 113. Since no exception was taken to the entry of Judge Canaday's order of 5......
-
Moore v. Owens, 24
...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, 103 S.E.2d 293; State v. Corl, 250 N.C. 262, 108 S......