Miller v. Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 169 S.E. 194 (N.C. 1933). · Go Syfert
Search
Miller v. Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 169 S.E. 194 (N.C. 1933). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
27 citation events across 7 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1933 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1933 1979 2026
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
R. L. Miller
v.
Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Company.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
May 3, 1933.
169 S.E. 194
1933 N.C. LEXIS 211
II. L. Strickland and J. E. Woolard for plaintiff. , John M. Robinson and Hunter M. Jones for defendant.
Stacy.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
Stacy, C. J.

We have examined the assignments of error appearing on the record and find, none of sufficient merit to warrant a new trial.

The exceptions addressed to the exclusion of evidence do not show what the answers to the questions would have been. The effect of the rulings, therefore, whether hurtful or other, is not apparent. “Where the record shows exceptions to unanswered questions, without more, the exceptions will not be considered on appeal.” Hubbard and Co. v. Brown, 186 N. C., 96, 118 S. E., 896; Allred v. Kirkman, 160 N. C., 392, 76 S. E., 244.

The tenth assignment of error is as follows: “The court erred in his charge to the jury as will appear in the charge, record pages 35 to 45.”[*609] It was said in S. v. Moore, 201 N. C., 618, 161 S. E., 91, that a broadside exception “to the charge as given” would not be considered. Un-pointed exceptions to the charge are unavailing on appeal. Rawls v. Lupton, 193 N. C., 428, 137 S. E., 175; Roberts v. Davis, 200 N. C., 424, 157 S. E., 66. The remaining exceptions are equally untenable.

No error.