Case ID: nc_209/html/0358-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MRS. GEORGE HILL v. R. D. CLARK and MARY CLARK.
    (Filed 22 January, 1936.)
    Appeal and Error A d — Appeal in this case dismissed as premature.
    At the close of the evidence the trial court intimated he would instruct the jury that plaintiff would be entitled to recover only nominal damages, whereupon plaintiff submitted to a voluntary nonsuit, and appealed. Held: The ruling of the trial court did not go to the heart of the matter or take the case from the jury, and the appeal is dismissed.
    Appeal by plaintiff from Oranmer, J., at April Term, 1935, of Beaueort.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Plaintiff brought her action for damages for alleged breach of contract for the cultivation of certain land. Defendants denied the breach. There was evidence by both plaintiff and defendants in support of their allegations. At the close of the testimony the trial judge intimated he was of opinion the jury should be instructed that the plaintiff would be entitled to recover only nominal damages. Upon such intimation, plaintiff submitted to a voluntary nonsuit and appealed.
    
      E. A. Daniel for plaintiff.
    
    
      Ward ■& Grimes for defendants.
    
   Per Curiam.

The appeal was improvidently taken. The ruling of the court did not go to the heart of the matter and did not take the case from the jury, but left open essential issues of fact still to be determined. White v. Harris, 166 N. C., 227.

Appeal dismissed.