Case Name: W. P. WARE v. SOUTHERN POWER COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1921-04-13
Citations: 181 N.C. 500
Docket Number: 
Parties: W. P. WARE v. SOUTHERN POWER COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 181
Pages: 500–501

Head Matter:
W. P. WARE v. SOUTHERN POWER COMPANY.
(Filed 13 April, 1921.)
Appeal and Error — Issues of Fact — Judgment—Technical Error.
Held, only issues of fact were involved on this appeal, and the judgment as to amount of plaintiff’s damages was not the basis of his appeal, being apparently according to his own agreement, and no error is found.
Appeal by plaintiff from Finley, J., at November Term, 1920, of Roobiingham. Action to set aside a deed for a right of way over plaintiff’s lands and an agreement fixing the compensation or amount of damages therefor, plaintiff alleging that his signatures to said instruments were procured by the false and fraudulent representations of defendant’s agent.
Upon issues joined, the jury returned the following verdict:
“1. Was tbe execution of tbe damage agreement referred to in tbe pleadings procured by fraud and misrepresentation as alleged in tbe complaint? Answer: No.’
“2. Was tbe execution of tbe right of way deed referred to in tbe pleadings procured by fraud and misrepresentation as alleged in tbe complaint? Answer: No.’
“3. What damages, if any, is tbe plaintiff entitled to recover of tbe defendant ? Answer: ‘.? ”
Defendant admitted that under tbe contracts it was indebted to tbe plaintiff in tbe sum of $20 and tendered judgment for this amount. His Honor gave judgment in favor of plaintiff for $20, but taxed him with tbe costs. Plaintiff appealed.
J. M. Sharp, J. R. J oyce and E. B. Ware for plaintiff.
Manly, U'endren & Womble and W. S. 0*B. Robinson, Jr., for defendant.

Opinion:
Pee CueiaM.
Tbe controversy between tbe parties in this action narrowed itself on tbe trial to questions of fact, which tbe jury have answered in favor of tbe defendant. We have carefully examined tbe record and find no sufficient reason for disturbing tbe verdict.
Technically, under tbe pleadings, plaintiff may not have been entitled to judgment for tbe $20, but this is not tbe basis of bis appeal. Apparently be has been rewarded according to bis own agreement. His Honor below evidently took this view of tbe matter, and we think tbe plaintiff should be content with tbe result.
No error.