Title: Grimes v. HOME CREDIT COMPANY OF KINSTON
Citation: 157 S.E.2d 213, 271 N.C. 608
Docket Number: 367
State: north-carolina
Issuer: north-carolina Supreme Court
Date: October 18, 1967

157 S.E.2d 213 (1967) 271 N.C. 608 Bertie GRIMES v. HOME CREDIT COMPANY OF KINSTON, North Carolina. No. 367. Supreme Court of North Carolina. October 18, 1967. *214 Turner &amp; Harrison, Kinston, for plaintiff appellant. White &amp; Aycock, Kinston, for defendant appellee. PER CURIAM: Plaintiff's first assignment of error is: This statement of the assignment ignores Rule 19(3) of the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court. An assignment of error to the admission or exclusion of evidence must include so much of that testimony as will enable the Court to understand the question sought to be presented without the necessity of going beyond the assignment itself. Darden v. Bone, 254 N.C. 599, 119 S.E.2d 634; Bridges v. Graham, 246 N.C. 371, 98 S.E.2d 492; 1 Strong, N.C. Index, *215 Appeal and Error § 23 (Supp.) (1957). Notwithstanding appellant's failure to comply with the rule, because of the brevity of the record, we have considered the assignment and find it to be without merit. The statements of "the girl who was employed at the Home Credit Company" that she herself had almost slipped and that the janitor had waxed the floor the night before were merely narrative of past occurrences. It was, therefore, incompetent hearsay as against her employer, the defendant. Edwards v. Hamill, 266 N.C. 304, 145 S.E.2d 884; Branch v. Dempsey, 265 N.C. 733, 145 S.E.2d 395; Brown v. Montgomery Ward &amp; Co., 217 N.C. 368, 8 S.E.2d 199. Even if this evidence had been admitted without objection, the judgment of nonsuit would have still been inevitable. Accord, Hedrick v. Tigniere, 267 N.C. 62, 147 S.E.2d 550; Murrell v. Handley, 245 N.C. 559, 96 S.E.2d 717. Plaintiff's evidence, including that which was excluded, merely tends to show that the floor in defendant's place of business had been waxed and polished. Evidence that the wax had been applied other than in the usual and customary manner is lacking. It shows neither an excessive quantity used nor any "unusual patch of wax" left on the floor. See Copeland v. Phthisic, 245 N.C. 580, 96 S.E.2d 697, 63 A.L.R.2d 587; Lee v. H. L. Green &amp; Co., 236 N.C. 83, 72 S.E.2d 33; annot., 63 A.L.R.2d 591 (1959). The judgment of nonsuit is Affirmed.