In directing an answer to the 5th issue, the court held as a matter of law that the defendants were estopped by the record herein from asserting any claim for betterments. The ruling seems to have been an inadvertence, Pritchard v. Williams, 176 N. C., 108, 96 S. E., 733, on rehearing 178 N. C., 444, 101 S. E., 85; S. c., 181 N. C., 46, 106 S. E., 144; Faison v. Kelly, 149 N. C., 282, 62 S. E., 1086, though not necessarily fatal. Foxman v. Hanes, 218 N. C., 722, 12 S. E. (2d), 258; Rankin v. Oates, 183 N. C., 517, 112 S. E., 32. “A new trial will not be granted when the action of the trial judge, even if erroneous, could by no possibility injure the appellant.” Butts v. Screws, 95 N. C., 215. It is not after the manner of appellate courts to prolong litigation merely for theoretical reasons. Munday v. Bank, 211 N. C., 276, 189 S. E., 779. Litigants are interested only in practical errors which result in harm. White v. McCabe, 208 N. C., 301, 180 S. E., 704; Brewer v. Ring and Valk, 177 N. C., 476, 99 S. E., 358.
The petitioner, John T. Williams, testified that about fifteen years ago, mayhap in 1910, he went to the bank to borrow some money and “found out at that time how the title to this particular piece of land was.” Upon this admission, the court instructed the jury not to consider any improvements thereafter placed upon the land by the defendants. The petitioner further admitted, on cross-examination, that all the improvements which he placed upon the land would exhaust them*34selves in varying periods from one to three to five years. It follows, therefore, that at the time of plaintiff’s recovery, the value of the land had not been increased by reason of any permanent improvements placed thereon by the defendants under a bona fide belief that they held the true title. C. S., 699 and 701.
In this state of the record, it would seem that no harm has come to the defendants in denying their claim for betterments. Hence, the result of the trial will not be disturbed.
No error.