Legal Opinion

Dickerson v. . Reynolds

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 24, 1934PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stacy, O. J.

Whose servant or agent was Walter Aiken at the time of the collision, the defendant’s or her son’s? The case turns on the answer to this question. It may be resolved either way by the record. This makes it a case for the jury. Parrish v. Armour Co., 200 N. C., 654, 158 S. E., 188.

The rule is, that, on a motion to nonsuit, the evidence which makes for the plaintiff’s claim, or tends to support his cause of action, is to be taken in its most favorable light for the plaintiff, and he is “entitled to the benefit of every reasonable intendment upon the evidence and every reasonable…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Nash v. . RoysterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  2. Christman v. . HilliardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  3. Hamilton v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  4. Parrish v. . Armour Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  5. Parrish v. Armour & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1931

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Lincoln v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
  2. Leonard v. Tatum & Dalton Transfer Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  3. Ross v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  4. Beck v. HooksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  5. Calhoun v. Nantahala Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1939

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

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

Powered by the Exa API