Court Opinion

ID: 9826382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:51:46.663513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:02.430550
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Jonrs.
I concur in overruling all exceptions, but I think exception 8 and sub-division (d) of exception 9 should be overruled on other grounds than those stated by Chief Justice Pope. Exception 8 complains of the charge as to wilfulness on the sole ground that there was no evidence of wilfulness. While I may be prepared to agree with appellant’s contention that there was no such evidence, it is clear that appellant can take no advantage thereof. There was no motion for nonsuit on that ground and no request to charge to that effect; on the contrary, the appellant specially requested the Court to instruct the jury as to the law governing recovery for wilful tort. As the complaint charged wilfulness, and appellant by its conduct apparently assumed that there was evidence on that subject, it would be highly unjust to the Circuit Court to impute to it reversible error under the circumstances. Sub-division (d) of exception 9 complains of error in refusing the motion for’a new trial on the *276same ground, but as the record fails to- disclose that the motion was made on such grounds, there is no basis for the exception.
Mr. Justice Woods concurs in the result.