Ritter Lumber Co. v. Moffitt

Per Curiam. There are seven exceptions in the record, all of which are formal, except three to parts of the charge. The first of these must be disregarded, because it is to the whole charge on the .third issue, which covers three and a half pages of the printed record, and contains several distinct propositions, and the errors complained of are not pointed out. Gwaltney v. Assurance Society, 132 N. C., 929. *571 The second is to the part of the charge on the third issue, as follows: “The defendant obligated himself in this contract to skid logs, and on double-deck skids, along the skidways over the tram, and, as the court thinks, there is nothing in the written contract in regard to the time when the logs would be taken off the skidways by the lumber company; and so I charge you that, nothing else appearing, the defendant could not recover anything under this issue.” An examination of the contract shows that there is no stipulation requiring the plaintiff to move the logs from the skidway in any particular time, and if the defendant relied on the contract alone, there could be no recovery on this item of damage, as stated by his Honor, as the evidence shows that the defendant did not rely upon the position that under the contract the plaintiff could not unreasonably delay the removal of the logs, but on an independent agreement between him and the plaintiff. This question was submitted to the jury under proper instructions. The third exception is to the statement of the contentions of the parties, all of which arose on the evidence. Upon an examination of the whole record, it appears to us that the case has .been tried impartially and that there is no error. No error.