Opinion

Miller v. Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Co.

  • 204 N.C. 608
  • 169 S.E. 194
  • 1933 N.C. LEXIS 211
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Filed
May 3, 1933
Status
Published
Author
Stacy
On the bench
Stacy
Cited by
3 cases
Authority
More cited than 62.4%

The opinion

Stacy, C. J.

We have examined the assignments of error appearing on the record and find, none of sufficient merit to warrant a new trial.

The exceptions addressed to the exclusion of evidence do not show what the answers to the questions would have been. The effect of the rulings, therefore, whether hurtful or other, is not apparent. “Where the record shows exceptions to unanswered questions, without more, the exceptions will not be considered on appeal.”

Hubbard and Co. v. Brown,

186 N. C., 96 , 118 S. E., 896 ;

Allred v. Kirkman,

160 N. C., 392 , 76 S. E., 244 .

The tenth assignment of error is as follows: “The court erred in his charge to the jury as will appear in the charge, record pages 35 to 45.”

*609

It was said in

S. v. Moore,

201 N. C., 618 , 161 S. E., 91 , that a broadside exception “to the charge as given” would not be considered. Un-pointed exceptions to the charge are unavailing on appeal.

Rawls v. Lupton,

193 N. C., 428 , 137 S. E., 175 ;

Roberts v. Davis,

200 N. C., 424 , 157 S. E., 66 . The remaining exceptions are equally untenable.

No error.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.