Bell v. . Hansley

48 N.C. 131
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedDecember 5, 1855
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 48 N.C. 131 (Bell v. . Hansley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bell v. . Hansley, 48 N.C. 131 (N.C. 1855).

Opinion

Nash, C. J.

This case presents the question, whether, when two men fight together* thereby committing an affray, either is guilty of an assault and battery upon the other. Jus *132 tice Puller in liis Nisi Prius, at page 16, says, each does commit an assault and battery upon the other, and that each can maintain an action for it. He refers to a case at Abingdon, Boulter v. Clark, when Serjeant Hayward appeared for the defendant, and offered to prove that the parties fought by consent, and insisted, that this, under the maxim volenti non fit wyjtvria, applied. Parker, Chief Baron, denied it, and said, “ the fighting being unlawful, the consent of the plaintiff to fight would be no bar to his action, and that he was entitled to a verdict.” Mr. Stephens in his Nisi Prius, 211, lays down the same doctrine—“ If two men engage in a boxing-match, an action can be sustained by ¡either of them against the other, if an assault be made; because the act of boxing is unlawful, and the consent of the parties to fight cannot excuse the injury.”

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Nash v. Mayfield
297 S.E.2d 185 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1982)
State v. Adams
264 S.E.2d 46 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1980)
Lail Ex Rel. Lail v. Woods
244 S.E.2d 500 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1978)
Colby v. McClendon
1922 OK 119 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1922)
Meints v. Huntington
276 F. 245 (Eighth Circuit, 1921)
Allen v. . Salley
101 S.E. 545 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1919)
Ange v. Woodmen of the World
91 S.E. 586 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)
Lewis v. . Fountain
84 S.E. 278 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1915)
Palmer v. Winston-Salem Railway & Electric Co.
42 S.E. 604 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1902)
State v. . Williams
75 N.C. 134 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1876)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
48 N.C. 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-hansley-nc-1855.