{
  "id": 8622691,
  "name": "R. L. MILLER v. CHARLOTTE COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Miller v. Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Co.",
  "decision_date": "1933-05-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "608",
  "last_page": "609",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 N.C. 608"
    }
  ],
  "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": "157 S. E., 66",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 N. C., 424",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622540
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/200/0424-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 S. E., 175",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 N. C., 428",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2217692
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/193/0428-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 S. E., 91",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "201 N. C., 618",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627180
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/201/0618-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 S. E., 244",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 N. C., 392",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271837
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/160/0392-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 S. E., 896",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 N. C., 96",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652834
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/186/0096-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 183,
    "char_count": 1900,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.479,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.774458350782802e-08,
      "percentile": 0.45640402201054964
    },
    "sha256": "97abb782662db760d49376f8ee1553a9f38c9de42b44b244f65b214c836984ba",
    "simhash": "1:9a1a344ce57708bc",
    "word_count": 336
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:28.108315+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "R. L. MILLER v. CHARLOTTE COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nWe have examined the assignments of error appearing on the record and find, none of sufficient merit to warrant a new trial.\nThe 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. \u201cWhere the record shows exceptions to unanswered questions, without more, the exceptions will not be considered on appeal.\u201d Hubbard and Co. v. Brown, 186 N. C., 96, 118 S. E., 896; Allred v. Kirkman, 160 N. C., 392, 76 S. E., 244.\nThe tenth assignment of error is as follows: \u201cThe court erred in his charge to the jury as will appear in the charge, record pages 35 to 45.\u201d It was said in S. v. Moore, 201 N. C., 618, 161 S. E., 91, that a broadside exception \u201cto the charge as given\u201d 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.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "II. L. Strickland and J. E. Woolard for plaintiff.",
      "John M. Robinson and Hunter M. Jones for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "R. L. MILLER v. CHARLOTTE COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY.\n(Filed 3 May, 1933.)\n1. Appeal and Error J d\u2014\n\u2022 Where it does not appear of record what excluded testimony would have been an exception to its exclusion will not be considered.\n2. Appeal and Error E c\u2014\nAn unpointed exception to the charge will not be considered on appeal.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Cowper, Special Judge, at September Special Term, 1932, of MeckxeNbubg.\nCivil action for damages.\nPlaintiff alleges that he was paralyzed in his left side, arm and leg, from drinking coca-cola, bottled by the defendant, which contained a spider and a fly.\nThe issue of negligence was answered in favor of the defendant, and from the judgment entered thereon, the plaintiff appeals.\nII. L. Strickland and J. E. Woolard for plaintiff.\nJohn M. Robinson and Hunter M. Jones for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0608-01",
  "first_page_order": 674,
  "last_page_order": 675
}