Brown v. Bass
This text of 136 S.E.2d 36 (Brown v. Bass) 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.
Opinion
Plaintiff’s assertion of error is based on the contention that the answers given by the jury to the second and third issues [740]*740are so inconsistent that no judgment could be entered thereon and, because of the inconsistency, the verdict should have been set aside in toto and a new trial ordered.
The argument made for plaintiff has been made on several occasions in the past and rejected. Sasser v. Lumber Company, 165 N.C. 242, 81 S.E. 320; Holton v. Moore, 165 N.C. 549, 81 S.E. 779; Oates v. Herrin, 197 N.C. 171, 148 S.E. 30; McKoy v. Craven, 198 N.C. 780, 153 S.E. 412; Allen v. Yarborough, 201 N.C. 568, 160 S.E. 833; Crane v. Carswell, 203 N.C. 555, 166 S.E. 746; Bullard v. Ross, 205 N.C. 495, 171 S.E. 789; Butler v. Gantt, 220 N.C. 711, 18 S.E. 2d 119; Swann v. Bigelow, 243 N.C. 285, 90 S.E. 2d 396. The latest application of the rule will be found in Clodfelter v. Carroll, ante 630.
No error.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
136 S.E.2d 36, 261 N.C. 739, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-bass-nc-1964.