Cleveland Mill & Power Co. v. Richards

Pee Curiam. Tbe defendants contended that tbe controversy should have been solved by an issue of indebtedness, and that tbe submission of the first issue deprived them of certain elements of defense. Issues arise upon tbe pleadings and “it has been held by this Court that where issues submitted by tbe court to tbe jury are sufficient in form and substance to present all phases of tbe controversy between tbe parties, there is no ground for exception to tbe same. ... A new trial will not ordinarily be granted by this Court where it appears that tbe issues submitted to tbe jury presented for their determination tbe essential questions in controversy, although other questions not determinative of liability are also included in tbe issues.” Bank v. Bank, 197 N. C., 526, 150 S. E., 34. An examination of tbe record and briefs of counsel discloses conflicting evidence upon disputed issues of fact. A verdict for either party *773 would have been supported by tbe evidence introduced at tbe trial. No error of law in tbe admission of testimony or tbe instructions of tbe trial judge is apparent as we interpret tbe record, bence tbe verdict and judgment tbereon are determinative. Affirmed.