38 S.E. 294 | N.C. | 1901
The defendant objects in this Court for the first time, that the complaint does not aver directly that the sendee would have come if he had received the message promptly. It is alleged inferentially. The direct averment should have been made, but upon the face of the complaint there is not a "statement of a defective cause of action," but a "defective statement of a good cause of action," which is cured by failing to demur thereto. Ladd v. Ladd,
The objection that the relationship of sendee (father-in-law) does not entitle plaintiff to recover for mental anguish, be reason of failure to be at his daughter's funeral, in answered by the discussion and decision inCashion v. Tel. Co.,
Without discussing the other matters, which may not arise in another trial, it appears that in response to the sixth prayer for instruction (which taken and construed as a whole was proper), the case merely states, "The Court charged the jury fully upon the law, to which there was no exception." But he appellant was entitled to have the Judge set out what he charged in lieu of that prayer, that this Court might see whether it "substantially" or "fully" covered the prayer asked. Wilson v. R. R.,
New trial.
Cited: Mfg. Co. v. Bank,
(105)
