Byrd v. . Davis
This text of 122 S.E. 300 (Byrd v. . Davis) 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
Walker D. Hines, styling himself Director General of Railroads (for whom subsequently Jas. C. Davis was substituted), filed his answer, admitting that he was “Director General of the Railroads of the United States,” and that said 76 mules were delivered to him as such to be transported from Wichita, Kansas, to Wallace, N. C., consigned to the plaintiffs, and admits that when the cars arrived at Wallace on 25 December, 1919, that his representative checked the stock and found three mules short, but sets up a denial of negligence causing the loss of the three mules.” This raised an issue of fact which should have gone to the jury, and for refusing to let them pass upon the issue there was error.
This precludes the necessity of discussing any other matters as the Director General submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court by his answer, which admits the receipt of the mules and payment of the freight and feed therefor and the contract of carriage.
A nonsuit must be taken as to the A. C. L. R. R. (jompany under the ruling in R. R. v. Ault, 256 U. S., 557, and. R. R. v. N. Dak., 250 U. S., 135, which have been cited and followed in several cases in this State. '
As to the Director General there must be a
New trial.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
122 S.E. 300, 187 N.C. 575, 1924 N.C. LEXIS 346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byrd-v-davis-nc-1924.