Legal Opinion

McCrowell v. Southern Railway Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 5, 1942PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Seawell, I.

For an orderly consideration of the case, we may array the contentions of the parties on the two appeals substantially as follows:

Upon the facts as they appear, the defendant company contends that its demurrer to the evidence and motion for judgment as of nonsuit should have been allowed for a number of reasons. In the first place, it is contended that the evidence discloses no negligence on the part of defendant, since, as contended, safety rule No. 103 (see supra), upon which it is conceived plaintiff’s case must wholly rest, does not apply to an employee such as plaintiff or to…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Second Employers'liability CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  2. Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  3. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. De AtleySupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  4. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. CarrSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
  5. Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. EarnestSupreme Court of the United States · 1913

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Raines v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  2. Ahoskie Production Credit Association v. WhedbeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959

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

Powered by the Exa API