Legal Opinion

McKoy v. . Craven

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 6, 1930PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.

Tbe plaintiff and tbe defendant were equally in fault. If one can recover so can the other. Thus there would be “mutual faults and mutual recoveries, which would contradict tbe saying that ‘law is tbe perfection of reason.’” Herring v. R. R., 32 N. C., 402. It is settled by tbe decisions of this Court that tbe plaintiff is not entitled to damages- upon tbe verdict. Baker v. R. R., 118 N. C., 1015; Sasser v. Lumber Co., 165 N. C., 242; Carter v. R. R., ibid., 244, 255; Holton v. Moore, ibid., 549. It will be noted that there is no issue as to tbe last clear chance. Gunter v. Wicker, 85 N. C.,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Gunter v. . WickerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881
  2. Baker v. Wilmington & Weldon R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
  3. Edge v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1910
  4. Herring v. Wilmington & Raleigh Rail RoadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1849
  5. Sasser v. Hales-Bryant Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Allen v. . YarboroughSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  2. Bullard v. . RossSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
  3. Crane v. . CarswellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  4. Bullard v. RossSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
  5. Brown v. BassSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964

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