Legal Opinion

Hayes v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 27, 1937PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStaCY, C. J.

The battleground of debate is whether the alleged contributory negligence of feme plaintiff should be held to bar recovery as a matter of law. Holton v. R. R., 188 N. C., 277, 124 S. E., 307. It is conceded that ordinarily the issue is for the twelve. Lincoln v. R. R., 207 N. C., 787, 178 S. E., 601; Butner v. R. R., 199 N. C., 695, 155 S. E., 601; Smith v. R. R., 200 N. C., 177, 156 S. E., 508. See, also, Davis v. R. R., 187 N. C., 147, 120 S. E., 827, where the question is discussed at length by Hoke, J., with full citation of authorities.

Originally, under C. S., 567, in eases to which it…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. State v. . CopeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
  2. Russell v. Carolina Central R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
  3. Lincoln v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
  4. Moseley v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
  5. Goss Ex Rel. Goss v. WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Bundy v. . PowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
  2. Godwin v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  3. Tyson v. . FordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  4. Short v. Chapman Ex Rel. RhoneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  5. Hampton v. . HawkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941

18 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