Williams v. Raines, 234 N.C. 452 (1951)

Nov. 7, 1951 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

234 N.C. 452

PERCY E. WILLIAMS v. FLOYD RAINES and Wife, THELMA NOE RAINES.

(Filed 7 November, 1951.)

1. Appeal and Error § 39b—

Assignments of error relating to an issue answered in appellant’s favor can afford no ground for new trial.

2. Appeal and Error § 6c (6) —

Exception to misstatement of a contention must be entered in apt time.

Appeal by plaintiff from Morris, J., May Term, 1951, LeNOir.

Action for damages arising out of a collision of two automobiles at a street intersection. '

Issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and damages were submitted to the jury. The jury answered each of the first two issues “yes.” From judgment on the verdict plaintiff appealed.

J ones, Reed & Griffin fox plaintiff, appellant.

Whitaker <& Jeffress for defendants, appellees.

Per Curiam.

All of plaintiff’s assignments of error, save one, are bottomed on exceptions to the charge of the court on the first issue. As the verdict on that issue was in favor of plaintiff, any error in the charge of the court in respect thereto is harmless and affords no cause for a new trial.

The lone exception to the charge on the second issue is directed to the statement of a contention. It does not appear that this exception was entered in apt time. In any event, we are unable to perceive that plaintiff was prejudiced thereby.

Tbe jury, in a trial free from error on the second issue, has resolved the question of contributory negligence against the plaintiff. He must abide the result.

No error.