Urquhart v. . R. R.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court by Mr.Chief Justice Clark. This is an action to recover damages for personal injury caused by the negligence of the defendant. The defendant took ninety-four exceptions, but abandoned fifty-one of them in this Court.
While the record is voluminous and the exceptions numerous, the matter for decision lies in a very small compass. The (583) case comes within the principles of law laid down in Coley v. R. R.,128 N.C. 534; S. c., 129 N.C. 407. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant 1 December, 1907, as a brakeman on its road.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Coley v. North Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1901
- Coley v. North Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1901
- Biles v. RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
3Cited by9 opinions
- Mrs. Georgia Ann Segars, as Temporary Administratrix of the Estate of Oscar A. Segars, Deceased v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1961
- Beach v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1952
- Breitenberg v. ParkerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1963
- State v. SpanglerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
- State v. LumbraSupreme Court of Vermont · 1962
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.