Butler v. Holt-Williamson Manufacturing Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal by defendant from Daniels, Jand a jury, at the April Term, 1921,.of CUMBERLAND. It is not necessary to set out all the evidence. So much is stated as is necessary to explain the questions presented. The plaintiff brought suit to recover damages for false arrest and imprisonment. Evidence for the plaintiff tended to show the facts to be as herein stated. The defendant corporation was engaged in manufacturing cotton cloth in the city of Fayetteville.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from Daniels, Jand a jury, at the April Term, 1921,.of CUMBERLAND. It is not necessary to set out all the evidence. So much is stated as is necessary to explain the questions presented. The plaintiff brought suit to recover damages for false arrest and imprisonment. Evidence for the plaintiff tended to show the facts to be as herein stated. The defendant corporation was engaged in manufacturing cotton cloth in the city of Fayetteville. On 3 August, 1920, about sunset, the plaintiff went to Charles Maultsby’s store, which was situated near the defendant’s mill, to see…
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.
First at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, and afterward at the conclusion of all the evidence, the defendant made a motion to dismiss the action as in case of nonsuit. Exception was duly entered to the court’s denial of each motion. By the express terms of the statute the defendant has the benefit only of the latter exception. C. S., 567; Riley v. Stone, 169 N. C., 423. Therefore, all the evidence introduced at the trial must be accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Rush v. McPherson, 176 N. C., 562.
The evidence introduced by the plaintiff tended…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Daniel v. RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- Jarrett v. High Point Trunk & Bag Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
- Riley v. . StoneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Rush v. McPhersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
- Raleigh Real Estate Co. v. MoserSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Dickerson v. . Refining Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
- Parrish v. Boysell Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- State v. . O'NealSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
- Snow v. . DebuttsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
- Kelly v. Newark Shoe Stores Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.