Court Opinion

ID: 9826269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:41:57.467347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:58.929657
License: Public Domain

The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice Gary.
This statement appears in the record:
“This was an action brought by the respondent, W. G. Hayes, for the purpose of recovering the sum of $1,600 from the appellant, from whom respondent alleged he had purchased a certain truck, and that the appellant had guaranteed that the truck was sound and in good condition, and practically new; and that respondent, relying on the express *376warranty of the plaintiff, bought said truck, and afterwards discovered that it was worn out, and only good for old junk; and as there had been a complete failure of this warranty the respondent asked that he might be allowed to return the truck to'appellant and recovery the purchase price of $1,600.”
The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $1,600 and the defendant appealed on five exceptions. They, however, cannot be considered, as the appellant has failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 5 of this Court (90 S. E. vii), which is as follows:
“Each excéption must contain a concise statement of one proposition of law or fact, which this Court is asked to review. '* * * Bqch exception must contain within itself, a complete assignment of error, and a mere reference therein to any other exception then or previously taken, or request to charge, will not be considered.”
Appeal dismissed.