8. Evidence 48 — absence of formal tender of witness as expert — question of qualification — appellate review The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the qualification of plaintiff's medical witness to answer hypothetical questions propounded to him was not presented because plaintiff did not formally tender the witness as an expert where it is obvious that plaintiff was tendering the witness as a medical expert and the defendant and the court so understood, the witness testified in detail as to his qualifications as a medical expert in pathology, defendant's objections were not directed to the witness's general qualifications as an expert pathologist but were objections to specific questions on the ground the witness was not qualified to answer them, and the court expressly ruled, as a matter of law, on his qualification to answer those questions. ON certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, reported in 17 N.C. App. 362, 194 S.E.2d 221, finding no error in the judgment of Crissman, J., for the defendant. White Crumpler by James G. White and Michael J. Lewis for plaintiff.

The record discloses that although plaintiff questioned Dr. Coleman extensively concerning his medical training and experience, there was no admission by defendant that Dr. Coleman was a medical expert and plaintiff did not ask the court to so find. This court in the recent case of Dickens v. Everhart, 17 N.C. App. 362, 194 S.E.2d 221 (1973), quoting from Stansbury, N.C. Evidence, 2d Ed., 133, p. 318, said: "* * * On objection being made, the party offering a witness as an expert should request a finding of his qualification; if there is no such request, and no finding or admission that the witness is qualified, the exclusion of his testimony will not be reviewed on appeal." Therefore, the exclusion of Dr. Coleman's testimony as an expert is not presented for review.