Lea v. . Bridgeman

EeviN, J. The only exceptions of the appellants are their- exceptions to the judgment. They took such exceptions in the court below'upon the express ground that the trial court erred in rendering the judgment because there was no evidence adduced on the trial sufficient to sustain ’the affirmative answers of the jury to the issues submitted. . The appellants failed to challenge the sufficiency of the testimony to support the verdict by a motion for nonsuit, or by a prayer for instruction, or by an objection to the submission of the issues. Holder v. Lumber Co., 161 N. C., 117, 76 S. E., 4-85; Burcham v. Wolfe, 180 N. C., 672, 104 S. E., 651; Morrisett v. Cotton Mills, 151 N. C., 31, 65 S. E., 514; Mincey v. Construction Co., 191 N. C., 548, 132 S. E., 462. Their effort to raise the question of the insufficiency of the evidence initially by their exceptions to the judgment comes too late. This is true because it has been held by this Court “with marked uniformity that an objection that there was no evidence or no sufficient evidence to support a verdict cannot be taken for the first time after the verdict has been returned.” Mincey v. Construction Co., supra. See, also, Moon v. Milling Co., 176 N. C., 407, 97 S. E., 213; Wilkerson v. Pass, 176 N. C., 698, 97 S. E., 466. *567 Tbe exceptions to tbe judgment present only tbe question of whether error appears on tbe face of tbe record, and tbe exceptions must fail if tbe judgment is supported by tbe record. Smith v. Smith, 226 N. C., 506, 39 S. E. (2d), 391; Bader v. Coach Co., 225 N. C., 537, 35 S. E. (2d), 609; Query v. Ins. Co., 218 N. C., 386, 11 S. E. (2d), 139. It is apparent that' tbe judgment conforms to tbe pleadings. A good title in fee simple is necessarily marketable and unencumbered for it is a title to tbe whole property absolutely. 31 C. J. S., Estates, section 8. Manifestly, tbe judgment is supported by tbe verdict. In re Escoffery, 216 N. C., 19, 3 S. E. (2d), 425. It follows that tbe judgment must be Affirmed.