Court Opinion

ID: 9808951
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:56:05.190175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:22:16.249384
License: Public Domain

ClaeK, C. J.,
concurs in the opinion and in tbe conclusion, but submits that it is erroneous to insert the order that tbe Court below shall enter a judgment of nonsuit. Tbe uniform practice and decisions of this Court, as well as justice, forbid it.
Where there is a nonsuit below and that is affirmed on appeal, such entry is proper. But when a case is tried by a jury below and "on appeal any error is found in tbe proceedings, error is declared and tbe case goes back for a new trial.
If a demurrer to tbe complaint is overruled, and on appeal it is held that it should have been sustained, this Court does not direct judgment below. So, if a demurrer to the evidence is erroneously overruled, final judgment below should not be *254directed. The reason is tlae same in botli cases. Non con-stat but if tbe Judge bad ruled correctly the plaintiff might then and there have asked and obtained leave to amend his complaint or amend the evidence. The plaintiff ought not to be put in a worse plight because, the Judge being with him, he did not ask leave to offer more evidence. If, when the case goes back, the plaintiff cannot “mend his lick” nonsuit will be voluntarily taken or will be ordered by the Court, but if the plaintiff can offer further evidence, what benefit will it be to the defendant to drive the plaintiff to a new action ?
The practice is settled. In Bernhardt v. Brown, 11N. C., at p. 711, it is said, refusing a motion to correct an entry of “new trial”: “The errors affected the proceedings and went into and brought an erroneous verdict. The mover, however, insists that the error is so vital that this Court can see that on its correction the verdict on the next trial must be for the opposite party. It may be so. It may also be true that on the next trial there may be amendments to the pleadings or new evidence brought forward. The Court cannot consider argument as to the possibility or probability of such changes. If the error declared by the Court is vital and irremediable, then on the new trial below the appellee will simply, in deference to our .ruling, submit to a final judgment.” This Court cannot enter or direct “judgment reversed” upon the assumption that the appellee will be compelled to take that course. When, on an appeal, error is found as to the proceedings anterior to and including the verdict, we can only declare error and order a new trial.
In Prevatt v. Harrelson, 132 N. C., 252, the very proposition now before us is expressly decided, the Court saying: “In refusing the motion to nonsuit there was error, for which, under the uniform practice of this Court, there must be a new trial. On such new trial, if the plaintiff can ‘mend his lick’ by additional and sufficient evidence, well and good. He has not lost the land. If he cannot offer additional evidence, this, though a new trial in form, will be virtually a *255finality against him.” In the same case, it is further said to be “the settled practice that when a motion to nonsuit (or a demurrer to the evidence) is erroneously refused, a new trial has always been ordered. State v. Adams, 115 N. C., at p. 784; State v. Rhodes, 112 N. C., at p. 858, are exactly in point, besides numerous cases in which it is taken as settled practice. The verdict and judgment being set aside, a trial de novo is necessary.”
In State v. Adams, 115 N. C., at p. 784, it is said: “In failing to sustain the demurrer to the evidence, and also for refusing to instruct the jury that there was no evidence to go to them, there was error. But this does not necessarily dispose of the case. Non constat that the State may not, in some cases, produce more evidence on the next trial. State v. Rhodes, 112 N. C., 857.”
Not only is this the settled and uniform practice, even in criminal cases as above shown, but it is a just practice both to save the unnecessary cost of a new trial, when if the plaintiff has additional evidence, it is to the interest of both parties that the matter shall be determined in this action, and because as said in Prevatt v. Harrelson, 132 N. C., at p. 253: “The verdict and judgment being set aside, a trial de novo is necessary.” Indeed, it is then a constitutional right, if the plaintiff can offer evidence sufficient to go to a jury. The practice is settled thus, if uniform precedents can settle anything. There is no reason shown for overruling them and no benefit to any one.