Legal Opinion

Martin v. P. H. Hanes Knitting Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 13, 1925PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.

The first exception relates to the manner in which the' physician had treated the intestate’s injured knee; but the issues concerning the physician’s alleged negligence were not considered or answered. The remainder of the witness’ answer, if not competent as a dying declaration under C. S., 160, was not responsive to the question, and no motion was made to strike it out. Dellinger v. Building Co., 187 N. C., 845. Moreover, a part of the evidence was unobjectionable, and it has often been held that a general exception will not be entertained unless all the evidence is incompetent. Smiley v.…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. West Construction Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
  2. Summerlin v. Carolina & North-Western RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
  3. State v. . BowmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1878
  4. Smiley v. . PearceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
  5. Moore v. General Accident, Fire, & Life Assurance Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1917

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Penland v. BIRD COAL COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  2. State v. . SmoakSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  3. Spivey v. NewmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  4. State v. SmoakSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  5. State v. . DilliardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943

10 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