Legal Opinion

Young v. . R. R.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 5, 1895PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

At the close of plaintiff's evidence his Honor was of the opinion that he was not entitled to recover, and a nonsuit was taken and an appeal granted. At the time of the fire the defendant was not liable as a common carrier but was only liable for want of ordinary care as a warehouseman. Hilliard v. R. R., 51 N.C. 343. The plaintiff was required to prove the negligence as a part of his case.Kahn v. R. R., 115 N.C. 638. We think his Honor properly held that the evidence was insufficient to justify the jury in rendering a verdict for plaintiff. Judges are no longer required to submit a case to…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Commissioners of Marion County v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Byrd v. Express Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  3. Wittkowsky v. WassonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1874
  4. Maguire v. S. A. L. RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  5. Crescent Liquor Co. v. Johnson, Vaughan & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1912

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Smith v. . SinkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API