Legal Opinion

Love v. . Queen City Lines, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 23, 1934PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClabKSON, J.

At the close of plaintiff’s evidence and at the close of all the evidence, the defendants made motions for judgment as in case of nonsuit. C. S., 567. We think the court below correct in refusing the motion as to the defendant, Queen City Coach Company, but not so as to Queen City Lines, Incorporated. The learned judge in the court below submitted to the jury, second issue, “Was plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant, Queen City Lines, Incorporated, as alleged in the complaint?” This issue was premised that there was sufficient, competent evidence to be submitted to tbe jury…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Johnson v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
  2. State v. . LeaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  3. Overcash v. Charlotte Electric Railway Light & Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
  4. J. A. Lambeth v. . N.C. R. R. Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1872
  5. Myers v. . KirkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Bullock v. . WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  2. Poole v. Harvey Motor Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1961

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

Powered by the Exa API