Adkins ex rel. Adkins v. Dills

132 S.E.2d 324, 260 N.C. 206, 1963 N.C. LEXIS 657
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided September 18, 1963·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PeR CuRiam.

We have considered each of plaintiff’s forty-three assignments of error. None discloses error deemed sufficiently prejudicial to constitute a sound basis for awarding a new trial. We have given particular consideration to the assignments of error, stressed by plaintiff in her brief, relating to the admission over her objection of the testimony of the witnesses James Newland and J. L. Newland as to the speed of the Adkins Ford when it overtook and passed the car in which they were traveling approximately one-half mile before it reached said intersection. In our view, this testimony, when considered in conjunction with the other evidence bearing upon the speed of the Adkins car between the time it passed from the view of these witnesses until the collision, was admissible under legal principles [208]*208stated in Corum v. Comer, 256 N.C. 252, 254, 123 S.E. 2d 473, and cases cited. Guided by appropriate instructions, the jury determined the crucial (factual) questions in favor of defendant.

No error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Adkins ex rel. Adkins v. Dills, 132 S.E.2d 324, 260 N.C. 206, 1963 N.C. LEXIS 657 (N.C. 1963).

132 S.E.2d 324 (Adkins ex rel. Adkins v. Dills) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Honeycutt Ex Rel. Honeycutt v. Strube
134 S.E.2d 110 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)