Broadway Bank v. Noble

Connor, J. All the evidence introduced at the trial of this action, if believed by the jury, tended to show (1) that the execution of the two notes sued on by the plaintiff was procured by the fraud' of the payee, as alleged by the defendant in his answer; (2) that the plaintiff is the holder of said notes, which are in form negotiable instruments, in due course, having taken them from a prior holder in good faith, before maturity and for value, without notice of any defect or infirmity; and (3) that the defendant, as maker of the notes, is now indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $300.00, with interest on each note from the date of its maturity. There was no evidence on behalf of the plaintiff tending to contradict the evidence introduced by the defendant to sustain his contention that *302 the first issue should be answered in the affirmative; nor was there evidence on behalf of the defendant tending to contradict the evidence introduced by the plaintiff tending to sustain its contentions that the second issue should be answered in the affirmative, and the third issue, “$300.00, and interest.” There was no evidence, by cross-examination or otherwise, tending to impeach the witnesses for the defendant or the witnesses for the plaintiff. There was, therefore, no error in the instructions of the court to the jury, which are assigned as error in this appeal. The instructions are in accord with the rule stated in Reinhardt v. Insurance Co., 201 N. C., 785, 161 S. E., 528, and approved in Somersette v. Stanaland, 202 N. C., 685, 163 S. E., 804. This rule is stated by Prof. McIntosh, in N. C. Practice and Procedure, on page 632, as follows: “If the evidence is all one way, and there is no conflict, the judge may say to the jury that, if they believe ;the evidence, they may find a certain verdict, but he cannot direct them that they must so find from the evidence. If the facts are admitted or established, and only one inference can be drawn from them, the judge may draw the inference and so direct the jury.” The defendant in the instant ease did not except to the action of the judge in writing the answers to the issues, with the permission of the jury, as shown by their acquiescence, nor does the defendant on his appeal to this Court assign such action as error. The defendant did not request the court to poll the jury, as he had the right to do. Lipscomb v. Cox, 195 N. C., 502, 142 S. E., 779; In re Will of Sugg, 194 N. C., 638, 140 S. E., 604. The record shows that the verdict was rendered by the jury in accordance with the instructions of the court. In view of the uncontradicted evidence, no other verdict could have been rendered. The judgment is affirmed. There is No error.