Opinion
Filed 14 January, 1955.
Trial 49 — A motion to set aside the verdict as being against the greater weight of the evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and when no abuse of discretion is shown, the court's refusal to grant the motion is not reviewable.
APPEAL by plaintiffs from McKeithen, Special Judge, May Term 1954 of ORANGE.
L. J. Phipps for Plaintiffs, Appellants.
Bonner D. Sawyer for Defendants, Appellees.
Civil action to recover a balance of $1,817.67 under an alleged contract for completion of a dwelling house for the defendants.
The defendants filed answer denying that they owed plaintiffs anything, and set up a cross-action asking for the recovery of $1,500.00 allegedly due them from a loan made on the property, and also for the recovery of $1,500.00 damages for alleged defective workmanship and inferior materials used in the construction of the dwelling house by the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs and the defendants offered evidence in support of the allegations in their pleadings.
The court submitted two issues to the jury: One. In what amount, if any, are the defendants indebted to the plaintiffs? And Two. In what amount, if any, are the plaintiffs indebted to the defendants? The jury answered the first issue nothing and the second issue $1,500.00. Judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict.
Plaintiffs appeal therefrom assigning error.
Plaintiffs have two assignments of error: One, to the court's refusal to set the verdict aside as being against the greater weight of the evidence, and Two, to the signing of the judgment.
The evidence was conflicting. The motion by the plaintiffs to set aside the verdict as being against the greater weight of the evidence was one addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and no abuse of discretion being shown its refusal to grant the motion is not reviewable. Billings v. Observer, 150 N.C. 540, 64 S.E. 435; Hoke v. Whisnant, 174 N.C. 658, 94 S.E. 446; Anderson v. Holland, 209 N.C. 746, 184 S.E. 511; Coach Co. v. Motor Lines, 229 N.C. 650, 50 S.E.2d 909; Poniros v. Teer Co., 236 N.C. 145, 72 S.E.2d 9.
Appeal dismissed.