Miller v. Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
R. L. Miller v. Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Company.
Opinion of the Court
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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.