{
  "id": 8656747,
  "name": "WILLIAMS v. HARRIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Harris",
  "decision_date": "1905-03-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "460",
  "last_page": "462",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "137 N.C. 460"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "94 N. C., 344",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651043
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/94/0344-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 N. C., 446",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11275791
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/35/0446-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 259,
    "char_count": 3599,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.442,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2713896001710988e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6148462709601988
    },
    "sha256": "4b9e85d3a3ad64e3932b01cd3077c3d4e3c94c7c12b7ea9755eb164b126975e5",
    "simhash": "1:7cd346d26e8ac620",
    "word_count": 638
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:21:47.205247+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "WILLIAMS v. HARRIS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nThis is an action to recover one barrel of whiskey. The evidence was that the plaintiffs shipped the barrel of whiskey to one Cuthrell without any order from him and without his knowledge; that he wrote plaintiffs at once that he had not ordered it and would not receive it, but had taken it out of depot to save storage charges against plaintiffs \u2014 paying freight on' it for them (which they paid back) \u2014 that it was subject to their order, though if they chose to let it stay till be should want it for use, be would take it, but could not use it at that time; to tbis plaintiffs assented by letter. Outbrell never included tb\u00e9 whiskey in any settlement witb plaintiffs and on an execution against him declined to allow tbis barrel to be included in tbe allotment of bis exemption because not bis property. Tbe defendant is tbe sheriff who seized tbe property under execution against Outbrell. Tbe only issue found was whether tbe plaintiffs were tbe owners of tbe whiskey, to which tbe jury responded \u201cNo.\u201d\nTbe Court charged the jury that upon tbe evidence Outh-rell did not order the whiskey and that plaintiff\u2019s reply to Outhrell\u2019s letter did not constitute a sale, but added that invoicing tbe whiskey to Outbrell was an offer to sell, and \u201cif Outbrell in receiving it from tbe common carrier and taking it into bis possession did so witb tbe intention of accepting tbe offer thus made, tbis amounted to an acceptance and vested title to tbe whiskey in Outbrell.\u201d Tbis was excepted to. Tbis instruction was unsupported by the evidence, which was uncontradicted, that Outbrell bad then no such intention. Upon tbe question whether the subsequent offer by Outbrell to bold tbe whiskey till be should have use for it did not constitute a conditional sale, tbe Oourt charged that tbe plaintiff\u2019s reply was not sufficient- to constitute such sale, and tbe defendant is not appealing.\nIt was error in tbe Judge to give to tbe jury an abstract proposition of law not supported by any view of tbe evidence. Brown v. Patton, 35 N. C., 446; King v. Wells, 94 N. C., 344. . It has been uniformly held by tbis Court that a failure to instruct tbe jury that there is no evidence (eases cited in Clark\u2019s.Code (3 Ed.), p. 511), or indeed an omission or failure to give any proper instruction, is waived unless there is a prayer for such instruction. Olark\u2019s Code (3 Ed.), p. 514, and numerous cases cited. But none tbe less if there is an error in the instruction given an exception thereto is valid if entered within ten days after adjournment for the term. Code, sec. 550. An error upon the face of the charge (unlike a mere failure to charge which is waived by not requesting an instruction) is only waived by not entering an exception thereto in the time allowed by law. Rule 27; Clark\u2019s Code (3 Ed.), pp. 920, 777, 778, 512, 513; Code, see. 550. The instruction here given of a proposition of law, without any evidence to support it, King v. Wells, 94 N. C., 344, was duly excepted to and was\nError.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bunn & Bunn and F. S. Spruill, for the plaintiff.",
      "Gilliam & Bassett, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WILLIAMS v. HARRIS.\n(Filed March 8, 1905).\nInstruction Without Evidence \u2014 Exception.\nIt is error to give to the jury an abstract proposition of law without any evidence to support it, and an exception thereto is valid, if entered within ten days after adjournment of the term.\nActioN by H. Gr. AVilliams & Co. against J. R. Harris, sheriff, heard by Judge Fred. Moore and a jury at the April Term, 1904, of the Superior Court of Edgecombe County. Erom a judgment for defendant, the plaintiff appealed.\nBunn & Bunn and F. S. Spruill, for the plaintiff.\nGilliam & Bassett, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0460-01",
  "first_page_order": 494,
  "last_page_order": 496
}