Legal Opinion

Livingston v. . Livingston

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 15, 1938PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

The action of the court in respect of the verdict amounted in law to setting it aside and granting a new trial. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 122 N. C., 332, 29 S. E., 367. The second response of the jury is without legal sanction.

It is true, in Lumber Co. v. Lumber Co., 187 N. C., 417, 121 S. E., 755, upon which the court’s action is sought to be sustained, the jury, after separating over the noon recess, was allowed to reassemble and to correct an error in calculation, but that case is quite unlike this one, and rests upon a different principle. Correcting an error before the discharge of the jury…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. McCabe Lumber Co. v. Beaufort County Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  2. Willoughby v. . ThreadgillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1875
  3. Lipscomb v. . CoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  4. Bundy v. . SuttonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  5. Coxe v. Singleton.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Selph v. SelphSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  2. Chandler v. U-Line Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
  3. Bd. of County Com. of Caddo County v. NovySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API