Watkins v. Grier
| Decision Date | 24 May 1944 |
| Docket Number | 674. |
| Citation | 30 S.E.2d 219,224 N.C. 334 |
| Parties | WATKINS v. GRIER. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Civil action instituted in the Municipal Court of the City of High Point to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained as result of actionable negligence of defendant.
Plaintiff in complaint filed, alleges that she suffered serious and permanent personal injuries on February 13, 1944, as proximate result of the negligence of agent of defendant in the operation of defendant's taxicab in which she was riding as a passenger,--all to her damage in large sum.
Defendant in answer filed denies the material allegations of the complaint, and by way of further answer and defense avers that plaintiff, acting under the advice of her attorney, and for a specific valuable consideration 'executed and delivered to persons other than this defendant a release * * * in full, complete and final settlement of all damages sustained' by her, which release is pleaded as an estoppel upon her bringing this action, and as a bar of her right to recover herein.
In reply plaintiff denies the averments in further answer of defendant and alleges that, if defendant or any other person has a release of any kind signed by plaintiff, (1) the same was obtained by fraud and undue influence, and without substantial consideration, and (2) she did not have sufficient mental capacity at the time of signing it to understand the nature and effect of it.
Upon the trial in the Municipal Court of the City of High Point defendant moved for judgment as in case of nonsuit when plaintiff first rested her case, and renewed the motion at the close of all the evidence. Both motions were overruled and defendant excepted to each ruling. The case was submitted to the jury on these issues:
'1. Did the plaintiff execute the paper-writing as alleged by the defendant in his answer?
'2. If the said paper-writing was executed and delivered as alleged in the answer, was the same procured by fraud or undue influence by the defendant, as alleged by the plaintiff?
'3. Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant as alleged in the complaint?
The parties agreed that the court might answer the first issue 'Yes'. The jury answered the second and third issues 'Yes', and assessed damages in answer to fourth issue.
Thereupon defendant moved to set aside the verdict as to the second issue upon the ground that there is no sufficient evidence in that respect for submission to the jury. And the court, as a matter of law, set aside the verdict as to this second issue, to which ruling plaintiff excepted.
Plaintiff then moved for a new trial. The motion was overruled, and plaintiff excepted.
Thereupon the court entered judgment in which, after reciting among other things that 'it further appearing to the court that the answer to the second issue is erroneous as a matter of law and that there is no evidence of fraud on the part of the defendant', it is adjudged 'that the answer to the second issue be set aside as a matter of law, and that the plaintiff have and recover nothing of the defendant'. To the signing of the judgment both plaintiff and defendant excepted and gave notice of appeal to Superior Court of Guilford County. On such appeal (1) plaintiff assigned as error, among others, the ruling of the Municipal Court of the City of High Point, in setting aside the verdict as to the second issue, and in thereupon entering judgment of nonsuit, and in refusing to submit an issue which she tendered as to whether at the time she executed the release she had sufficient mental capacity to understand its nature and effect; and (2) defendant assigned as error the refusal of the Municipal Court to grant his motions for judgment as in case of nonsuit made when plaintiff first rested her case and renewed at close of all the evidence.
Upon hearing on such appeal, the court (1) 'overruled each and every objection and exception of plaintiff', (2) refused motion of plaintiff to dismiss the appeal of defendant, and (3) sustained defendant's exceptions to the refusal of the Municipal Court of the City of High Point to allow motions of defendant for judgment as of nonsuit,--made when plaintiff first rested her case and renewed at close of all the evidence, and entered judgment affirming the judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of High Point, and dismissing the action. Plaintiff excepts to each of the rulings of the Judge of Superior Court, and to the judgment and appeals therefrom to Supreme Court, and assigns error.
C. A. York and Walser & Wright, all of High Point, for plaintiff-appellant.
Gold, McAnally & Gold, of High Point, for defendant-appellee.
Assignments of error of plaintiff appellant based upon exceptions to the rulings of the judge of Superior Court in overruling plaintiff's assignments of error based upon exceptions to the rulings of the judge of Municipal Court of the City of High Point setting aside the verdict of the jury as to the second issue for insufficiency of evidence to support it, as a matter of law, and then entering judgment as of nonsuit are well taken.
In the act giving civil jurisdiction to the Municipal Court of the City of High Point, Pub.Loc.Laws 1927, Chapter 699, amending Pub.Loc.Laws 1913, Chapter 569, by which the court was created, the General Assembly provided in Section 8 that the rules of practice as required by law in the Superior Court for the trial of all causes shall apply to said Municipal Court, subsection (m); and that the procedure of the Municipal Court, except as otherwise therein prescribed, shall follow the rules and principles laid down in the chapter on civil procedure in the Consolidated Statutes and the amendments thereto in so far as the same may be adapted to the needs and requirements of the said Municipal Court, subsection (r).
Among the rules of practice laid down in the chapter on civil procedure in the Consolidated Statutes is C.S. § 567, now G.S. § 1-183, relating to motions for nonsuit. In construing and applying this section this Court has held it to be the uniform practice that where a trial court has refused to grant motions of nonsuit made under this statute, it is error for it to set aside verdict for insufficiency of evidence as a matter of law, Riley v. Stone, 169 N.C. 421, 86 S.E. 348; Jernigan v. Neighbors, 195 N.C. 231, 141 S.E. 586; Godfrey v. Queen City Coach Co., 200 N.C 41, 156 S.E. 139; Lee v. Penland, 200 N.C. 340, 157 S.E. 31; Price v. Life & Casualty Ins. Co., 200 N.C. 427, 157 S.E. 132...
To continue reading
Request your trial