Penney v. Carpenter
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
BRITT, Judge.
Did the trial court err in allowing defendants’ motion for directed verdict and dismissing the action? We hold that it did.
*149Defendants’ motion for directed verdict presented the question whether, as a matter of law, the evidence offered by plaintiffs, when considered in the light most favorable to them, was insufficient to be submitted to the jury. Roberts v. Memorial Park, 281 N.C. 48, 187 S.E. 2d 721 (1972); Sink v. Sink, 11 N.C. App. 549, 181 S.E. 2d 721 (1971).
We think the principle of novation or substitution of a new contract between the parties applies in this case, raising…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Roberts v. William N. & Kate B. Reynolds Mem. ParkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- Stanley v. CoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
- Fowler v. Nationwide Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
- Sink v. SinkCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971
3Cited by6 opinions
- Michael Dasher v. RBC BankCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2014
- Citrini v. GoodwinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
- ACCORDIUS HEALTH LLC v. THOMAS DEL MARSHALLDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2020
- Alkemal Sing. Pte. Ltd. v. Dew Glob. Fin., LLCNorth Carolina Business Court · 2018
- Alkemal Sing. Pte. Ltd. v. Dew Glob. Fin., LLCNorth Carolina Business Court · 2017
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.