Connor v. Conrad

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Connor v. Conrad

151 S.E.2d 616, 268 N.C. 717, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1299

DecidedDecember 14, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 151 S.E.2d 616 (Connor v. Conrad) 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

Connor v. Conrad, 151 S.E.2d 616, 268 N.C. 717, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1299 (N.C. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff and defendant introduced evidence. Defendant assigns as error the denial of his motion for judgment of compulsory nonsuit entered at the close of all the evidence. A study [719]*719of the evidence in the record before us shows that plaintiff’s evidence, considered in the light most favorable to him, and giving him the benefit of every legitimate inference to be drawn therefrom, is sufficient to carry the case to the jury. The court correctly denied the motion for judgment of compulsory nonsuit.

The jury, under application of settled principles of law, resolved the issues of fact against the defendant. While the appellant’s brief presents contentions involving fine distinctions and close differentiations, a careful examination of all of his assignments of error discloses no question or feature requiring extended discussion. Neither reversible nor prejudicial error has been made to appear. The verdict and judgment below will be upheld.

No error.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff and defendant introduced evidence. Defendant assigns as error the denial of his motion for judgment of compulsory nonsuit entered at the close of all the evidence. A study [719]*719of the evidence in the record before us shows that plaintiff’s evidence, considered in the light most favorable to him, and giving him the benefit of every legitimate inference to be drawn therefrom, is sufficient to carry the case to the jury. The court correctly denied the motion for judgment of compulsory nonsuit.

The jury, under application of settled principles of law, resolved the issues of fact against the defendant. While the appellant’s brief presents contentions involving fine distinctions and close differentiations, a careful examination of all of his assignments of error discloses no question or feature requiring extended discussion. Neither reversible nor prejudicial error has been made to appear. The verdict and judgment below will be upheld.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 S.E.2d 616, 268 N.C. 717, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connor-v-conrad-nc-1966.