Bottoms v. Seaboard & Roanoke Railroad
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil actioN, tried at Spring Term, 1891, of NorthamptoN Superior Court, Connor, J., presiding. The defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Clark, J.:
The defendant’s counsel requested the Court to charge—
1. That, upon the evidence offered by the plaintiff, he could not recover.
2. That, upon the whole evidence, the plaintiff could not recover, and excepted to the refusal of the same.
As the verdict under the present procedure is never that the plaintiffs do or do not recover, but the jury respond to issues submitted to them, and on their findings the Court adjudges the recovery, such prayers are not proper, and it is not error 1 o refuse them. McDonald v. Carson, 94 N. C., 497; Farrell v. R. R., 102 N. C., 390.
The exception “ to…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- McKinnon v. . MorrisonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
- Denmark v. Atlantic & North Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- McDonald v. . CarsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
- Turrentine v. . Richmond Davidson RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
- Farrell & Co. v. Richmond & Danville R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Tucker v. . SatterthwaiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1897
- Willis v. Atlantic & Danville RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1898
- Witsell v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1897
- Earnhardt v. Clement.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- Blackwell v. Lynchburg & Durham RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1892
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.