Art Bronze & Iron Works v. Beaman

199 N.C. 537
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided October 8, 1930·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

Appellant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto', which, in effect, is but a belated motion for judgment on the pleadings, was properly overruled on authority of the decisions in Jernigan v. Neighbors, 195 N. C., 231, 141 S. E., 586, and Shives v. Cotton Mills, 151 N. C., 290, 66 S. E., 141. The defendant Gower, in his answer, denies the agreement as alleged by the Commercial Casualty Insurance Company, but this is the extent of his plea.

The record discloses no exceptive assignment of error upon which a reversal of the judgment might properly be based. Hence, it will not be disturbed.

No error.

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

Art Bronze & Iron Works v. Beaman, 199 N.C. 537 (N.C. 1930).

199 N.C. 537 (Art Bronze & Iron Works v. Beaman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stuckey v. Bank of Trumann
459 S.W.2d 572 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1970)