Legal Opinion

Bullard v. Ross

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 13, 1933PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.

Tbe affirmative answer to tbe second issue bars tbe plaintiff’s recovery of damages. Crane v. Carswell, 203 N. C., 555; Allen v. Yarborough, 201 N. C., 568; McKoy v. Craven, 198 N. C., 780.

Tbe plaintiff excepted to tbe exclusion of evidence tending to show that tbe death of one mule and tbe injury of tbe other resulted in tbe loss, or partial loss, of bis crop. Tbe proposed evidence, being remote and speculative or conjectural, was properly excluded. Sledge v. Reid, 73 N. C., 440. Besides, in view of bis contributory negligence an increase in tbe assessment of damages would be of no benefit…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Harton v. . Telephone Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  2. White v. Carolina Realty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  3. Sledge v. . Reid, Sheriff, C.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1875
  4. Allen v. . YarboroughSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  5. Crane v. . CarswellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Price v. GraySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  2. Pettes v. JonesNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Henderson v. MunnCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1938
  4. May v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  5. Brown v. BassSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964

2 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