Corl v. . Cannon

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Corl v. . Cannon

151 S.E. 865, 198 N.C. 418, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 361

DecidedFebruary 26, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 151 S.E. 865 (Corl v. . Cannon) 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

Corl v. . Cannon, 151 S.E. 865, 198 N.C. 418, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 361 (N.C. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee CuRiAM.

The defense of contributory negligence seems to have been submitted to the jury upon the theory that, after due notice of defendant’s intention to excavate near plaintiff’s building, the plaintiff failed to take any precaution or to exercise proper care for the protection of his own property. But the first issue finds that the defendant gave the plaintiff no notice of his intention to excavate near the building in question. Hence, the first and fourth issues, interpreted in the light of the record, would seem to be in conflict. The court instructed the jury: “Now, gentlemen, I want you to answer all these issues, and then, when you answer these issues, the court will determine who recovers and who does not.” In this state of the record, it would appear that a consistent verdict should be rendered to enable the court to determine the rights of the parties. Wood v. Jones, ante, 356. To this end a new trial must be awarded.

New trial.

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

Pee CuRiAM.

The defense of contributory negligence seems to have been submitted to the jury upon the theory that, after due notice of defendant’s intention to excavate near plaintiff’s building, the plaintiff failed to take any precaution or to exercise proper care for the protection of his own property. But the first issue finds that the defendant gave the plaintiff no notice of his intention to excavate near the building in question. Hence, the first and fourth issues, interpreted in the light of the record, would seem to be in conflict. The court instructed the jury: “Now, gentlemen, I want you to answer all these issues, and then, when you answer these issues, the court will determine who recovers and who does not.” In this state of the record, it would appear that a consistent verdict should be rendered to enable the court to determine the rights of the parties. Wood v. Jones, ante, 356. To this end a new trial must be awarded.

New trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 S.E. 865, 198 N.C. 418, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corl-v-cannon-nc-1930.