
    WILLIAM RAMSAY vs. JAMES H. MORRIS.
    Where in an action of warranty, the only question raised is as to the proper rule respecting damages, and the jury find all the issues in favor of the defendant, the charge of the Judge becomes immaterial, and, even if erroneous, cannot be reviewed.
    The case of Gant v. Ehmsucker, 12 Ire. 254, cited and approved.
    Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Buncombe County, at the Spring Term, 1852, his Honor Judge Manly presiding.
    
      N. W. Woodfin for the plaintiff.
    
      Craig and J. W. Woodfin, for the defendant.
   Pearson, J.

This was covenant upon a warranty of the soundness of a slave. The plaintiff excepts to the charge, in reference to the damages. But the question, intended to be raised, is not presented, and is put'out of the case and made wholly immaterial by a verdict in favor of the defendant. The charge, in reference to soundness, is not excepted to, and the jury find for the defendant; thereby, in effect, finding that the slave was not unsound.

This very point was decided at the last Term, Gant v. Hunsucker, 12 Ire. 254.

That was covenant on a warranty of the title of a slave. The plaintiff excepted to the charge, in reference to the measure of damages, but the jury found for the defendant upon the plea of non est factum, and it was held, this put the matter of damages out of the case. There are several cases, where exceptions, in reference to the statute of limitations, are excluded by a verdict for the defendant, upon the general issue.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.  