Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

246 N.C. 202

State v. Worley

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1957-05-01

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1979

3 state decisions

Relies on Salley v. Fayetteville Coca-Cola Bottling Co. · Cecil v. . Lumber Company · Eno Investment Co. v. Protective Chemicals Laboratory, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1957-05-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The record contains numerous exceptions. However, they have not been brought forward and assigned as error, as required by Rule 19, Section 3 of the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court. 221 N.C. 554; Investment Co. v. Chemicals Laboratory, 233 N.C. 294, 63 S.E. 2d 637.

¶2The appellant does have what purports to be assignments of error, but none of them is supported by an exception. This Court will not search through a record in an effort to determine whether or not it contains an exception or exceptions that will sustain assignments of error. Cecil v. Lumber Co., 197 N.C. 81, 147 S.E. 735.

¶3We have examined the record. The verdict supports the judgment and no error of law appears on the face of the record. Judgment affirmed.

¶4Appeal dismissed.

/246/nc/202 · .json · Public domain