Court Opinion

ID: 9810513
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:52:22.428024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:59.285772
License: Public Domain

Stacy, C. J.,
after stating the case: We think the trial court erred in limiting the use of the chemical analysis, made by the State Chemist, to evidence tending to show want of consideration. Fertilizer Co. v. Thomas, 181 N. C., 274, 106 S. E., 835. True, it is provided by C. S., 4697, that “no suit for damages from results of use of fertilizer may be brought except after chemical analysis showing deficiency of ingredients” (unless other facts appear, not now pertinent), and when such analysis is had in accordance with the provisions of the statute, the certificate of the State Chemist, setting out the analysis, is made prima facie proof of the constituency of said fertilizer as shown thereby. But here, there was a certificate of the State Chemist, showing deficiency of ingredients of the fertilizer, in evidence without objection, hence it would seem that defendant was entitled to have his counterclaim for loss of crops submitted to the jury. Swift & Co. v. Aydlett, 192 N. C., 330, 135 S. E., 141. We are not now required to say whether the analysis made by the Richmond firm of chemists is competent as evidence on this phase of the ease. Nor is the preliminary question as to whether the provisions of the statute were complied with, which go to the competency of the certificate of the State Chemist as prima facie proof of the constituency of the fertilizer, presented on this appeal, as the certificate was admitted without objection.
There was no error, however, in declining to submit an issue as to the alleged assault and false arrest by the officer who served the claim and delivery papers issued in the present action, for the very good reason, among others, that the alleged cause of .action, set up herein as a counterclaim, did not arise out of, nor is it connected with, the subject-matter of plaintiff’s claim, and it did not accrue until after the institution of the present suit. C. S., 519 and 521; Phipps v. Wilson, 125 N. C., 106, 34 S. E., 227; Sewing Machine Co. v. Burger, 181 N. C., 241, 107 S. E., 14; Smith v. French, 141 N. C., 1, 53 S. E., 435. See, also, Williams v. Perkins, 192 N. C., 175, 134 S. E., 417.
For the error, as indicated, a new trial must be awarded, and it is so ordered.
New trial.