T. L. Edge v. North State Feldspar Corp.
T. L. EDGE Et Al. v. NORTH STATE FELDSPAR CORPORATION
Opinion of the Court
Stacy, C. J.
The verdict is uncertain or ambiguous.
Wood v. Jones, 198 N. C., 356 , 151 S. E., 732 . It is in the alternative.
Pearce v. Fisher, 133 N. C., 333 , 45 S. E., 638 . Its inconclusiveness necessitates another hearing.
Plotkin v. Bond Co., 200 N. C., 590 , 157 S. E., 870 ;
Bank v. Broom Co., 188 N. C., 508 , 125 S. E., 12 ;
Holler v. Tel. Co., 149 N. C., 336 , 63 S. E., 92 . “A verdict finding matter uncertainly or ambiguously, is insufficient, and no judgment shall be given thereon.” Coke on Littleton, 227, quoted with approval in Crews v. Crews, 64 N. C., 536 . “It is misleading to embody in one issue two propositions as to which the jury might give different responses.”
Emery v. R. R., 102 N. C., 209 , 9 S. E., 139 ;
Carey v. Carey, 108 N. C., 267 , 12 S. E., 1038 ;
Mfg. Co. v. Assur. Co., 106 N. C., 28 , 10 S. E., 1057 ;
DeHart v. Jenkins, 211 N. C., 314 , 190 S. E., 218 .
A verdict, whether upon one or many issues, should be certain and determinative of the controversy.
Plotkin v. Bond Co., supra; Chapman-Hunt Co. v. Board of Education, 198 N. C., 111 , 150 S. E., 713 ;
Bank v. Broom Co., supra; McAdoo v. R. R., 105 N. C., 140 , 11 S. E., 316 ;
Emery v. R. R., supra.
Here, the alternative verdict éstablishes neither proposition with certainty or definiteness, as the evidence of mutual mistake, if any, is very slight, and the sufficiency of the allegation of fraud is quite doubtful, if not deficient.
Pearce v. Fisher, supra.
*248 Nor is the verdict capable of interpretation so as to support the judgment quod recuperet, by proper reference to the pleadings, the evidence, the admissions of the parties, and the charge of the court.
Newbern v. Gordon, 201 N.C., 817 , 160 S. E., 182 ;
Short v. Kaltman, 192 N. C., 154 , 134 S. E., 425 ;
Kannan v. Assad, 182 N. C., 77 , 108 S. E., 383 . The rights of the parties have not been sufficiently determined.
New trial.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.