{
  "id": 11272571,
  "name": "W. C. JONES and ED. STEELE et al. v. CITY OF HIGH POINT",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jones v. City of High Point",
  "decision_date": "1910-11-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "371",
  "last_page": "373",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "153 N.C. 371"
    }
  ],
  "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": "133 N. C., 712",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 N. C., 319",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N. C., 608",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 N. C., 577",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659681
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/120/0577-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N. C., 657",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 N. C., 406",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 N. C., 163",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659591
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/131/0163-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N. C., 268",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 N. C., 720",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 211,
    "char_count": 2944,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.455,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0482681451391715e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5532880488399131
    },
    "sha256": "ec00dc2d2287ab0fdfa7c11d97aafbc448eb4f6ad072476202b10296f3f971d6",
    "simhash": "1:b621b3a633950160",
    "word_count": 539
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:54.157289+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. C. JONES and ED. STEELE et al. v. CITY OF HIGH POINT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ClabK, C. J.\nTbe exceptions are properly grouped at tbe end of tbe case on appeal as required by rule 19 (2). Tbe first two exceptions are for refusal to exclude certain evidence from tbe jury. But tbe case on appeal, as settled by tbe judge, does not sbow tbat any exception was taken to tbe admission of sucb evidence, nor tbat any motion was afterwards made to withdraw tbe evidence from tbe jury, nor tbat sucb motion was refused. Exceptions to tbe evidence must be taken during tbe trial, in apt time. If not so taken, setting tbem out, as assignments of error, cannot avail anything. Lowe v. Elliott, 107 N. C., 720; Patterson v. Mills, 121 N. C., 268; Wilson v. Lumber Co., 131 N. C., 163.\nTbe fourth exception was tbat tbe court permitted tbe jury to consider tbe above evidence, but' as there was no exception to its admission, nor motion to withdraw it from tbe jury or any prayer for instruction in regard to it, and it not being evidence tbat was made incompetent by statute, tbe defendant cannot raise this exception for tbe first time in bis assignments of error. He seems to have been perfectly content with it, until after verdict.\nTbe third exception is for \u201ctbe refusal of tbe court to set aside tbe verdict because tbat it is not supported by tbe evidence.\u201d It does not appear tbat any motion to tbat effect was made and refused. Besides an allegation tbat a verdict is against tbe weight of evidence is a matter not reviewable on appeal. Edwards v. Phifer, 120 N. C., 406, and cases cited. And an exception that there was no evidence cannot be considered unless a motion to that effect is made before the case is submitted to the jury. This has been held by a long line of decisions. S. v. Wilson, 121 N. C., 657; S. v. Harris, 120 N. C., 577, and numerous cases there cited. S. v. Furr, 121 N. C., 608; Printing Co. v. Herbert, 137 N. C., 319; S. v. Holder, 133 N. C., 712.\nThere being no errors upon the face of the record proper, the judgment is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ClabK, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "King & Kimball for plaintiff.",
      "W. P. Ragan and G. 8. Bradshaw for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. C. JONES and ED. STEELE et al. v. CITY OF HIGH POINT.\n(Filed 2 November, 1910.)\n1. Objections and Exceptions \u2014 Evidence\u2014Admissibility\u2014Appeal and Error \u2014 Procedure.\nExceptions to the admissibility of evidence must be taken in apt time during the trial, and when the record discloses they were taken for the first time in grouping the exceptions on appeal under Rule 19 (2) they will not be considered.\n2. Appeal and . Error \u2014 Verdict\u2014Set Aside \u2014 Evidence\u2014Procedure.\nFor the Supreme Court to consider an exception to refusal of the trial court to set a verdict aside for the lack of evidence to support it, the record must show that a motion in the lower court to that effect had been made and refused, before the case was submitted to the jury.\nAppeal by defendant from W. J. Adams, J., at tbe June Term, 1910, of Gujlfobd.\nTbe facts are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion of tbe Court.\nKing & Kimball for plaintiff.\nW. P. Ragan and G. 8. Bradshaw for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0371-01",
  "first_page_order": 419,
  "last_page_order": 421
}