Legal Opinion · Dissent

Armstrong v. Acme Spinning Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 10, 1934Published

1DissentClarkson, J.

In my opinion it cannot be said as a matter of law that there was no sufficient competent evidence, tending to show that the plaintiff in this action was injured by the negligence of the defendant as alleged in the complaint. On a motion as of nonsuit, the evidence is to be considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. C. S., 567; Lynch v. Tel. Co., 204 N. C., 252; Thigpen v. Ins. Co., 204 N. C., 551. Viewing the evidence in that light, I think it was a matter for the jury.

There is conflicting testimony as to whether or not Herman Bush, one of the defendant’s witnesses, who was at…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Stewart v. Carpet Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  2. Springs v. . DollSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
  3. Russell v. Carolina Central R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
  4. Ross v. Cotton Mills.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  5. Thigpen v. Jefferson Standard Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API