Case ID: nc_237/html/0430-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DeviN, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PAUL H. HARRIS v. S. C. BURGESS and R. S. BURGESS.
    (Filed 25 March, 1953.)
    1. Appeal and Error § 38—
    The burden is upon appellant not only to show error but also to make it appear that the result was materially affected thereby to his hurt.
    2. Evidence § 18—
    An unsigned contract executed at the time is competent to corroborate one party’s testimony as to what the oral agreement between them was.
    
    3. Trial § 17—
    Where evidence is competent for a restricted purpose, its general admission will not be held for error in the absence' of a request by the adverse party that its admission be restricted.
    4. Trial § 14—
    An objection “to the above line of questions” without request that any of the questions or answers, which had been admitted without objection, be stricken, cannot be sustained.
    5. Trial §39—
    The verdict of the jury may be interpreted and given significance by reference to the pleadings, evidence and charge of the court.
    Appeal from Patton, Special Judge, September Term, 1952, of Caldwell.
    No error.
    Action to establish plaintiff’s right as a partner with defendants in the business conducted under the name of Smoky Mountain Fibre Company. Defendants denied there was a partnership and alleged the only contract between them was one of employment.
    Plaintiff offered evidence tending to support his plea that the parties had entered into a contract of partnership, and that defendants had breached the agreement and refused to permit plaintiff to share in the partnership.
    On the other hand, the defendants’ testimony tended to show that there was no contract of partnership but that plaintiff was employed at an agreed salary plus a bonus in the event profits were derived from the business, and that plaintiff had been fully paid according to the contract. The issues were submitted to the jury and answered as follows:
    “1. Did the plaintiff and defendants enter into a partnership contract as alleged in the complaint? Answer: No.
    “2. If not, did plaintiff and defendants enter into an employment contract as alleged in defendants’ further answer? Answer: No.”
    Other issues not material to the appeal were not answered.
    
      From judgment on tbe verdict in favor of tbe defendants, tbe plaintiff appealed.
    
      L. M. Abernethy and Claude F. Seila for plaintiff, appellant.
    
    
      Folger Townsend and 0. L. Anderson for defendants, appellees.
    
   DeviN, C. J.

Tbe plaintiff bas brought forward in bis assignments of error several exceptions noted during tbe trial to rulings of tbe court in tbe admission and rejection of testimony. We bave examined each of these exceptions and find them insufficient to warrant setting aside tbe verdict and judgment and awarding a new trial. Tbe burden is upon tbe appellant not only to show error but also to make it appear that the result was materially affected thereby to bis hurt. Garland v. Penegar, 235 N.C. 517, 70 S.E. 2d 486; Call v. Stroud, 232 N.C. 478, 61 S.E. 2d 342.

Plaintiff excepted to the admission in evidence of an unsigned proposed contract, which it bad been testified was drawn up at tbe time, setting out tbe terms of tbe agreement as contended by defendants. Tbe exception is without merit as tbe paper was competent to corroborate tbe defendants’ testimony as to what the oral agreement was. There was no request that tbe restricted purpose of tbe testimony be stated to tbe jury. Rule 21.

Plaintiff also assigns error in that tbe defendants in their cross-examination of tbe plaintiff were permitted to show that after be bad been denied share in tbe business as partner plaintiff, in application for unemployment compensation, stated bis last place of employment was with Smoky Mountain Fibre Company. This evidence, which was admitted without objection, was competent in contradiction of plaintiff’s testimony and bis contention that bis relation to tbe company was that of partner. While tbe cross-examination was somewhat prolonged and tbe objectionable phrase “rocking chair money” was used in some of tbe questions, there was no objection by plaintiff to any of tbe questions or answers until after a number of questions about tbe matter bad been propounded and answered, it was noted, “Plaintiff objects to tbe above line of questions.” There was no request that any of tbe questions or answers which bad been admitted without objection be stricken. We perceive no just ground of complaint on this score.

Tbe other exceptions to other matters of evidence not herein discussed, we think, present no substantial ground for disturbing tbe result.

Plaintiff also noted exception to portions of tbe judge’s charge to tbe jury, but none of them can be sustained.

Tbe verdict on tbe second issue would seem to negative also tbe defendants’ contention that tbe contract between tbe parties was one of employment. But tbe second issue was addressed to tbe defendants’ pleading which, attempted to set up a counterclaim against the plaintiff. Apparently, for the purpose of negativing the counterclaim, the jury answered the issue “No.” The defendants have not appealed. The plaintiff cannot complain. The rule is that the verdict may be interpreted and given significance by reference to the pleadings, evidence and charge of the court. White v. Price, ante, 347; Jernigan v. Jernigan, 226 N.C. 204, 37 S.E. 2d 493.

The determinative issue was one of fact, whether the agreement between the parties was for a partnership or for employment. The jury, after hearing all the evidence and the charge of the court, decided the parties did not enter into a contract of partnership. The trial judge approved. This must write finis to the plaintiff’s claim.

In the trial we find

No error.