Judges: Rodman
Filed Date: 1/5/1877
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
It was decided in Haskins v. Royster, 70 N.C. 601 [
It is the duty of this Court to give such judgment as it appears on the record that the Court below should have given. The plaintiff moves here for judgment upon the verdict. There are no exceptions by defendant to the Judge's charge, and it does not appear that he asked for a new trial. The instructions of the Judge on the question of damages are not full, but it does not appear that he was requested to give any others. If he had thought the damages excessive he would have set the verdict aside and given a *Page 357 new trial on that ground. We neither do nor can know anything of the evidence and if we did we could not set aside the verdict and give a new trial on that ground except perhaps where it appeared to be a very gross case of excess
Judgment below reversed and judgment in this Court for the plaintiff according to the verdict.
PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed.
Biggers v. . Matthews ( 1908 )
Raymond v. Yarrington ( 1903 )
Fowler v. Nationwide Insurance Company ( 1962 )
Lexington Homes, Inc. v. W. E. Tyson Builders, Inc. ( 1985 )
Carolina Overall Corp. v. East Carolina Linen Supply, Inc. ( 1970 )
Elvington v. Waccamaw Shingle Co. ( 1926 )
Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Gardiner Dairy Co. ( 1908 )
McElwee v. . Blackwell ( 1886 )
Angle v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. ( 1894 )