{
  "id": 8551859,
  "name": "ALFRED B. FAEBER v. E. C. T. CORPORATION",
  "name_abbreviation": "Faeber v. E. C. T. Corp.",
  "decision_date": "1972-10-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 7212SC675",
  "first_page": "429",
  "last_page": "430",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "16 N.C. App. 429"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "234 N.C. 427",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "429"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 S.E. 2d 67",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 N.C. 267",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572630
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/272/0267-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 S.E. 2d 871",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1942,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "221 N.C. 218",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627150
      ],
      "year": 1942,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/221/0218-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 233,
    "char_count": 3438,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.549,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.7978877098403923e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8972969080436736
    },
    "sha256": "3591c85e6bd40a92c1966b4ced9428f0213ed9b990ffaf9ffd13849f95c0d546",
    "simhash": "1:1bed747fef4fd7c7",
    "word_count": 556
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:31.279819+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Brock concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ALFRED B. FAEBER v. E. C. T. CORPORATION"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nDefendant submits that the questions raised in its three assignments of error are included in its contention that \u201cthe court erred in its failure and refusal to instruct the jury as requested by the defendant in apt time to give instructions to the jury as specially prayed for as to the meaning of the terms \u2018legal justification,\u2019 \u2018sufficient cause\u2019 and \u2018wrongful discharge.\u2019 \u201d\nIt is the duty of the trial court to charge the law applicable to the substantive features of the case arising on the evidence, without special requests, and to apply the law to the various factual situations presented by the conflicting evidence. 7 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Trial, \u00a7 33, pp. 324, 325. When a party aptly tenders a written request for a specific instruction which is correct in itself and supported by evidence, the failure of the court to give the instruction, at least in substance, is error. Bass v. Hocutt, 221 N.C. 218, 19 S.E. 2d 871 (1942). However, the court is not required to charge the jury in the precise language of the instructions requested so long as the substance of the request is included in the charge. King v. Higgins, 272 N.C. 267, 158 S.E. 2d 67 (1967).\nAfter a careful review of the charge in the instant case, we conclude that the court properly instructed the jury with respect to the law applicable to the substantive features of the case, and properly applied the law to the evidence. Defendant\u2019s prayer for special instructions was in two parts. First, defendant \u201cspelled out\u201d an instruction that it wanted given; the court gave that instruction almost verbatim. (R. p. 77.) Defendant then requested that the court instruct the jury on the terms \u201clegal justification,\u201d \u201csufficient cause,\u201d and \u201cwrongful discharge\u201d and cited Hagan v. Jenkins, 234 N.C. 427, 429. We conclude that while the court did not specifically define the terms requested by defendant, its instructions sufficiently covered the meaning of the terms. We perceive no prejudice to defendant; therefore, the assignments of error are overruled.\nNo error.\nChief Judge Mallard and Judge Brock concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McCoy, Weaver, Wiggins, Cleveland & Raper by William E. Clark for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Nance, Collier, Singleton, Kirkman & Herndon by Charles H. Kirkman for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ALFRED B. FAEBER v. E. C. T. CORPORATION\nNo. 7212SC675\n(Filed 25 October 1972)\n1. Trial \u00a7 38\u2014 request for instructions\nWhen a party aptly tenders a written request for a specific instruction which is correct in itself and supported by the evidence, the failure of the court to give the instruction, at least in substance, is error.\n2. Master and Servant \u00a7 9\u2014 breach of employment contract \u2014 sufficiency of instructions\nIn an action to recover for breach of an employment contract, the trial court\u2019s instructions sufficiently covered the meaning of the terms \u201clegal justification,\u201d \u201csufficient cause,\u201d and \u201cwrongful discharge,\u201d although the court did not specifically define those terms as had been requested by defendant.\nAppeal by defendant from Clark, Judge, at the April 1972 Civil Session of Cumberland Superior Court.\nPlaintiff instituted this action to recover $11,000 allegedly due him for breach of a contract of employment with defendant. The jury found (1) that defendant wrongfully terminated the contract of employment with plaintiff and (2) that plaintiff was entitled to recover $8,415. From judgment entered on the verdict, defendant appealed.\nMcCoy, Weaver, Wiggins, Cleveland & Raper by William E. Clark for plaintiff appellee.\nNance, Collier, Singleton, Kirkman & Herndon by Charles H. Kirkman for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0429-01",
  "first_page_order": 453,
  "last_page_order": 454
}