Legal Opinion

Edwards v. Hood Motor Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 19, 1952No. 244PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJohNsON, J.

Before a verdict is complete it must be accepted by tbe court, but it is tbe duty of tbe presiding judge, before accepting a verdict, to scrutinize its form and substance to prevent insufficient or inconsistent findings from becoming a record of tbe court. Therefore, where tbe findings are indefinite or inconsistent, tbe presiding judge may give additional instructions and direct tbe jury to retire again and bring in a proper verdict, but be may not tell them what their verdict shall be. Baird v. Ball, 204 N.C. 469, 168 S.E. 667.

However, a party litigant has a substantial right in a verdict…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Butner v. SpeaseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  2. Butner v. . SpeaseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  3. Luttrell v. . Mineral Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  4. Allen v. . YarboroughSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  5. Abernethy v. Yount.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Kindred of North Carolina, Inc. v. BondCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003
  2. State v. GatlinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  3. Southeastern Fire Insurance Company v. WaltonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  4. Southern Nat. Bank of North Carolina v. PocockCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976
  5. Rogers v. Sportsworld of Rocky Mount, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API