Stout v. Wren.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
From Randolph. The Plaintiff and Defendant had a quarrel and agreed to fight. After retiring for that purpose, Defendant asked Plaintiff “ if he would clear him of the law.” Plaintiff answered, “ yesand Defendant beat him. Plaintiff made no resistance during the beating, and according to the testimony of some, was too much intoxicated to know what he was doing: other witnesses thought otherwise.
Read the full summary
From Randolph. The Plaintiff and Defendant had a quarrel and agreed to fight. After retiring for that purpose, Defendant asked Plaintiff “ if he would clear him of the law.” Plaintiff answered, “ yesand Defendant beat him. Plaintiff made no resistance during the beating, and according to the testimony of some, was too much intoxicated to know what he was doing: other witnesses thought otherwise. The Court instructed the Jury, that if the Plaintiff Was so much intoxicated as not to know what he was doing, they ought to give him a verdict; but if he was not ignorant of what he was about, he was…
1Opinion of the Court
It is equally reasonable and correct that a man shall not recover a recompense for an injury received by his own consent; but the rule must necessarily be received with this qualification, that the act from whence the injury proceeded be (421) lawful. Hence, in those manly sports and exercises which are thought to qualify men for the use of arms and to give them strength and activity, if two played by consent at cudgels, and one hurt the other, no action would lie. But where, in an action for assault and battery, the defendant offered to give in evidence that the plaintiff and he boxed by…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Hudson v. CraftCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
- Teeters v. FrostSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1930
- Gaines v. WolcottCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1969
- Lund v. TylerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1901
- Colby v. McClendonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1922
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.