From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lindsey v. Sanderlin

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Sep 1, 1889
10 S.E. 518 (N.C. 1889)

Opinion

(September Term, 1889.)

Appeal — Assignment of Error.

The Supreme Court will not consider exceptions where no assignment of error has been properly made below.

APPEAL from Boykin, J., Spring Term, 1889, of CURRITUCK.

C. W. Grandy for plaintiff.

L. D. Starke for defendant.


The argument of the plaintiff's counsel was addressed to the general character of his Honor's charge in reference to negligence. We regret that we are precluded from passing upon that question. There is not only a failure to assign error (see McKinnin v. Morrison, post, 354, and Carlton v. R. R., post, 365), but the case expressly states that the instructions given were not excepted to.

The judgment therefore must be

Affirmed.

Cited: Barber v. Buffaloe, 122 N.C. 131.

(332)


Summaries of

Lindsey v. Sanderlin

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Sep 1, 1889
10 S.E. 518 (N.C. 1889)
Case details for

Lindsey v. Sanderlin

Case Details

Full title:A. H. LINDSEY v. THOMAS SANDERLIN

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Sep 1, 1889

Citations

10 S.E. 518 (N.C. 1889)
104 N.C. 331

Citing Cases

Barber v. Buffaloe

Exceptions cannot be made for the first time in this court. Phipps v. Pierce, 94 N.C. 514; Calvert v. Miller,…