{ "id": 8617280, "name": "ARTHUR SMITH v. THE STANFIELD HOSIERY MILL, INC.", "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Stanfield Hosiery Mill, Inc.", "decision_date": "1937-12-15", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "661", "last_page": "662", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "212 N.C. 661" } ], "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": "158 S. E., 486", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "200 N. C., 702", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625643 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/200/0702-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 S. E., 294", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "169 N. C., 468", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659548 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/169/0468-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 S. E., 721", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 N. C., 605", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2217740 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/193/0605-01" ] }, { "cite": "60 N. C., 440", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "77 S. E., 759", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "162 N. C., 586", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272095 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/162/0586-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 S. E., 6", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "191 N. C., 387", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629388 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/191/0387-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 S. E., 176", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "83 S. E., 483", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "167 N. C., 239", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272104 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/167/0239-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 S. E., 39", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "168 N. C., 48", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656925 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/168/0048-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 S. E., 20", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "187 N. C., 32", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653250 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/187/0032-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 332, "char_count": 4193, "ocr_confidence": 0.497, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.2152788035105633e-07, "percentile": 0.8667497603142114 }, "sha256": "f8f14e7ad5b6fd487ccefbf2127eff4e8f154515062a309aae3344168d0a4d97", "simhash": "1:bc77b09f6592ad78", "word_count": 718 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:43.466662+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "ARTHUR SMITH v. THE STANFIELD HOSIERY MILL, INC." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nWe need not pause to inquire whether error was committed in the admission of evidence, which the court stated would be stricken out unless its competency later appeared, for, upon the record as presented it would seem that tbe summation of the complaint, \u201cthe dyestuffs were deleterious and poisonous,\u201d when no such allegation appears therein, and the recitation of the contention, \u201cthe calves were born with something wrong with them, they were unable to stand or walk and born blind,\u201d when there was no evidence to support such a contention, brings the case within the principle announced in S. v. Love, 187 N. C., 32, 121 S. E., 20, to the effect that where, by the action of the court, evidence material to the issue, which has been excluded, is placed before the jury, without opportunity to answer it or in any way to meet it, necessitates a new trial.\nEvidence relative to the condition of the young calves was heard by the judge in the absence of the jury, and excluded as being incompetent, so we were told on the argument, yet in delivering his charge to the jury, the judge gives this excluded evidence as the basis of one of plaintiff\u2019s contentions. The testimony undoubtedly found lodgement in the court\u2019s mind, and to have called\u2019 the matter to his attention, as a cor-rectible inadvertence, would only have served to emphasize the error. Bank v. McArthur, 168 N. C., 48, 84 S. E., 39; Medlin v. Board of Education, 167 N. C., 239, 83 S. E., 483; Speed v. Perry, ibid., 122, 83 S. E., 176; S. v. Whaley, 191 N. C., 387, 132 S. E., 6; S. v. Book, 162 N. C., 586, 77 S. E., 759; S. v. Dick, 60 N. C., 440. Where the judge himself fails to disregard incompetent evidence, or to eradicate it from his own mind, it would seem to be asking rather much to require a higher standard of the jury. Its harmful effect is obvious. Credit Corp. v. Boushall, 193 N. C., 605, 137 S. E., 721; Morton v. Water Co., 169 N. C., 468, 86 S. E., 294.\nFor the error, as indicated, the defendant is entitled to another hearing. It is so ordered.\nNew trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "O. J. Sihes, G. H. Morton, and Eartsell & Hartsell for plaintiff, appellee.", "Brown & Brown and B. L. Smith & Sons for defendant, appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ARTHUR SMITH v. THE STANFIELD HOSIERY MILL, INC.\n(Filed 15 December, 1937.)\nTrial \u00a7 33 \u2014 Statement of contentions not based npon evidence introduced at the trial constitutes reversible error.\nWhere the court, in stating the contentions of a party, states a contention not supported by proper allegation of the complaint, and a contention based upon evidence excluded by the court, an exception thereto must be sustained, since it places before the jury evidence and contentions which appellant has had no opportunity to controvert, and such error is not a correctible inadvertence, since to have called the matter to the court\u2019s attention would have emphasized the error.\nAppeal by defendant from Warliclc, J., at February -Term, 1937, of STANLY.\nCivil action to restrain nuisance, later converted into an action to recover permanent damages.\nIn the operation of defendant\u2019s hosiery mill, dyestuffs are emptied from its vats into Eock Hole Creek, which flows through plaintiff\u2019s lands two miles from defendant\u2019s mill. The case is not unlike Nance v. Fertilizer Go., 200 N. C., 702, 158 S. E., 486.\nOver objection, plaintiff was allowed to testify that his cows gave less milk \u201csince the dyestuffs were emptied into the creek than they did before that time.\u201d The court admitted the evidence with the statement that he would strike it out unless later made competent.\nIn charging the jury, the court stated: The plaintiff alleges that the waters became contaminated; \u201cthat they (the dyestuffs) were deleterious and poisonous,\u201d etc. (Exception.) And further: Plaintiff contends that the cows were forced from necessity to drink the water; that it affected their milk, their milk-gjving qualities; and \u201cthat the calves were born with something wrong with them, that they were unable to stand or walk and born blind.\u201d (Exception.)\nThe jury answered the controverted issues in favor of the plaintiff and assessed the damages at $350.00. From judgment thereon the defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nO. J. Sihes, G. H. Morton, and Eartsell & Hartsell for plaintiff, appellee.\nBrown & Brown and B. L. Smith & Sons for defendant, appellant." }, "file_name": "0661-01", "first_page_order": 731, "last_page_order": 732 }