Legal Opinion

Wilson v. Webster

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 11, 1957No. 666PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

The only assignment of error on this appeal is to the failure of the court below to sustain the defendants’ motion for judgment as of nonsuit.

It would seem that under the provisions of G.S. 20-141 (e) and our decisions, the evidence adduced in the trial below was sufficient to carry the case to the jury. Burchette v. Distributing Co., 243 N.C. 120, 90 S.E. 2d 232; Chaffin v. Brame, 233 N.C. 377, 64 S.E. 2d 276; Boles v. Hegler, 232 N.C. 327, 59 S.E. 2d 796; Cummins v. Fruit Co., 225 N.C. 625, 36 S.E. 2d 11.

The ruling of the court below is

Affirmed.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Chaffin v. BrameSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  2. Cummins v. Southern Fruit Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
  3. Burchette v. DAVIS DISTRIBUTING COMPANY OF DURHAMSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  4. Boles v. HeglerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Beasley v. WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  2. Brooks v. HoneycuttSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
  3. Brooks v. HoneycuttSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
  4. Hutchins v. CorbettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
  5. Dezern v. Asheboro City Board of EducationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963

1 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