Legal Opinion

MacE v. . Mineral Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 12, 1915PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

After stating the case: It appears in this case that the intestate of plaintiff had been employed to work as foreman in the defendant's service, and as overseer of the work performed by others placed under his authority. He was an experienced miner, having been engaged in the business of mining for many years. Because of his expertness thus acquired, the defendant was induced to take him into its service. The work he was to do on the day of the accident was left, in respect to the method and manner of doing it, to his own judgment, and he was perfectly free to exercise his own common sense…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Railroad Co. v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Armour v. HahnSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  3. Hicks v. . Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  4. Beesley v. F. W. Wheeler & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Fraser v. Red River Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1891

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Darden v. Robert G. Lassiter & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  2. Watkins v. Continental Can Co.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1963

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

Powered by the Exa API