Legal Opinion

Rose v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 14, 1936PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

The judgment of nonsuit must be affirmed on authority of Goldstein v. R. R., 203 N. C., 166, 165 S. E., 337, and Weston v. R. R., 194 N. C., 210, 139 S. E., 237. These cases are controlling upon the facts presently appearing of record.

The case of Dickey v. R. R., 196 N. C., 726, 147 S. E., 15, cited and relied upon by plaintiffs, is distinguishable in that no town ordinance was being violated by the defendant at the time of the accident as was the situation in Biekey s case, supra.

The pertinent authorities are assembled in Sessoms v. R. R., 208 N. C., 844, 182 S. E., 112.

Affirmed.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Weston v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  2. Dickey v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
  3. Sessoms v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
  4. Goldstein v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Southern Pac. Co. v. HaightCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1942
  2. Southern Pac. Co. v. HaightCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1942