Philco Finance Corp. v. Mitchell
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
ARNOLD, Judge.
Appellants contend that the trial court erred in setting aside the judgment entered 1 November 1974 and in ordering *267a new trial. We disagree. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 59 (a) (1) provides that a new trial may be granted for “[a]ny irregularity by which any party was prevented from having a fair trial.” This section provides wide latitude for the trial judge to award new trials, and it does not require that he set out grounds to support his order. However, the able judge in this case indicated that he was granting the motion, under Rule 59, because he felt he “acted too hastily in denying…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Mangum v. SurlesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- Gibbs v. HeavlinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1974
- Perfecting Service Co. v. Product Development & Sales Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hoover v. KLEER-PAK OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977
- Smith v. WhiteCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011
- Exum v. ExumCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2014