Lucas v. Carolina Central Railway Co.

*508 Clark, J.: Though there is a large number of exceptions, they are not numbered as required by Rule 27 and noted on the margin of the record as required by Rule 21. Being necessarily a part of the “case on appeal” the numbering of the exceptions and marginal references thereto should be printed. It is a great convenience on the argument to have this, especially when, as in this case, the exceptions are numerous. The attention of appellants is called to what was said on this subject in Alexander v. Alexander, 120 N. C., 472 (on page 474) and to the penalty prescribed by Rule 20 for failure to comply with the Rule. Without adverting to the fact that this is an action for damages resulting from breach of a contract (set out as the basis of a former judgment) to do certain ditching on the defendant’s own land and not directly for a tort for “injuries to real estate,” the motion for a change of venue was properly refused. If it be conceded that it was an action for “injuries to realty,” The Code, Section 190 (1), an error as to the venue is not as formerly a defect affecting the jurisdiction, but only ground for a motion to remove, which was waived, since the motion was neither “made in' writing” nor “before the time of answering expired.” Code, Section 195; McMinn v. Hamilton, 11 N. C., 300; Lafoon v. Shearin, 91 N. C., 370 (which was an action of ejectment); Morgan v. Bank, 93 N. C., 352; County Board v. State Board, 106 N. C., 81; Baruch v. Long, 117 N. C., 509. There is no force in defendant’s suggestion that the complaint does not disclose in what County the land lies, for it alleges as the cause of action the breach of the agreement embraced in the judgment, referring to the judgment appropriately, so that the defendant, by examining the pleadings in such former action, would have had. notice of the locus and, indeed, in its answer the defendant sets out the judgment and contract in full and avers it has -fully complied therewith and has done the ditching therein required. Besides *509 if there had been any doubt as to the locality, the defendant could have asked for a bill of particulars before answering (Code, Section 259; Bryan v. Spivey, 106 N. C., 95) or that the pleading be made more specific. Code, Section 261; Fulps v. Mock, 108 N. C., 601. There are many other exceptions, hut they are without merit and need not be discussed. Though not abandoned, with propriety they were neither insisted upon nor argued in this Court. No error.