Keller v. Caldwell Furniture Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtAdaMS, J.
The first five exceptions are without substantial merit. The testimony to which they relate was admissible as tending to show that the plaintiff’s injury affected his ability to perform physical labor and to earn money. Wallace v. R. R., 104 N. C., 442; Eansley v. R. R., 115 N. C., 611; Rushing v. R. R., 149 N. C., 161; Hargis v. Power Co., 175 N. C., 31. The exceptions are not within the principle, stated in Shepherd v. Lumber Co., 166 N. C., 130.
*415Tbe second assignment of error questions tbe competency of evidence and tbe propriety of remarks made by one of tbe plaintiff’s attorneys in bis…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Britt v. Carolina Northern RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Wallace v. Western N. C. RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
- Hodges v. WilsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
- State v. . BryantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- State v. DavenportSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. MintonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- Hodges v. . WilsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
- Moebius v. McCrackenMichigan Supreme Court · 1933
- Watson v. United StatesDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1940
- Fincher v. RhyneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.