Roberts v. . Davis
157 S.E. 66
N.C.
1931
Check Treatment
Per OueiaM.

Tbe record discloses that exception to tbe charge was as fоllows: ‍​​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‍“Defendants except to tbe charge of the court.” This is not specific.

In Rawls v. Lupton, 193 N. C., at p. 430, speaking to tbe subject, citing numerous authorities: “Errors must be specifically assigned. ‍​​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‍An ‘unpointed, broadside’ exceрtion to tbe ‘charge as given’ will not be considered. McKinnon v. Morrison, 104 N. C., 354. Exception to tbе charge of tbe court in general terms, not sufficiently specific to сall tbe attention of ‍​​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‍tbe court to tbe particular point claimed to be erroneous, cannot bе considered by an appellаte court.”

In Cecil v. Lumber Co., 197 N. C., at p. 82, is tbe following: “Tbe assignments of error, appearing on tbe present record, are not sufficiently definite to enable ‍​​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‍tbe court to understand wbat questions are sought to bе presented, without a voyage of discovery through tbe record. Sturtevant v. Cotton Mills, 171 N. C., 119, 87 S. E., 992. Henсe, tbe motion of plaintiffs to dismiss tbe аppeal and to affirm tbe judgment ‍​​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‍for failure to comply with Rule 19, section 3, would seem to be well founded. Porter v. Lumber Co., 164 N. C., 396, 80 S. E., 443.”

Notwithstanding tbe assignment of error that tbe charge of tbe court below is not prоperly presented on tbe record, we have examined tbe pоrtion ofi tbe charge pointed оut on tbe argument in this Court as error, but cаn see no prejudicial or reversible error. Tbe charge of tbe сourt below, as pointed out on tbе argument as error made by tbe cоurt below, ■we think on tbe facts substantially сorrect. If defendant bad wanted a charge more specific, а prayer should have been requested. On tbe whole record we can see no error. By an examinatiоn of tbe records in tbe office of tbe register of deeds it appеars that defendant, before she *427 рurchased, could have discovered the title of plaintiff to one-third interest in the land. It may be hard measure on the defendant, Mrs. Mary Moore, but, as there is no error in law, we have nothing to do with the findings of fact; that is for the jury to determine. The jury found the disputed facts for plaintiff. •

No error.