Legal Opinion

Batts v. Home Telephone & Telegraph Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 26, 1923PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, J.

The defendant’s main exception, as stressed on the argument and in its brief, is the one directed to the refusal of the court to grant its motion for judgment as of nonsuit, made first at the close of 'the plaintiff’s evidence, and renewed at the close of all the evidence.

There was evidence tending to support the jury’s finding on the first three issues; and this, we think, was sufficient to import liability under authority of Campbell v. Boyd, 88 N. C., 131; Monroe v. R. R., 151 N. C., 374. See, also, 20 R. C. L., 65, where the rule applicable is stated as follows:

“Where the owner or…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Pickett v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
  2. Johnson v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
  3. Ledford v. Valley River Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
  4. Campbell v. . BoydSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1883
  5. Monroe v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Pascal Ex Rel. Pascal v. Burke Transit Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  2. Hood v. Queen City Coach CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
  3. Jones v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  4. Cathey v. . Construction Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  5. Cathey v. Southeastern Construction Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940

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