Crane v. . Carswell

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Crane v. . Carswell

166 S.E. 746, 203 N.C. 555, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 34

Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided November 23, 1932·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The contributory negligence of the plaintiff bars his recovery although damages were assessed upon the third issue. Baker v. R. R., 118 N. C., 1015; Sasser v. Lumber Co., 165 N. C., 242; McKoy v. Craven, 198 N. C., 780; Allen v. Yarborough, 201 N. C., 568. We find' nothing inconsistent in the verdict and his Honor’s refusal to set it aside as a matter of discretion is not reviewable.

There is no reversible error in the instruction complained of. The ordinance referred to is practically the same as the State law. Code, 1931, sec. 2621(58).

No error.

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

Per Curiam.

The contributory negligence of the plaintiff bars his recovery although damages were assessed upon the third issue. Baker v. R. R., 118 N. C., 1015; Sasser v. Lumber Co., 165 N. C., 242; McKoy v. Craven, 198 N. C., 780; Allen v. Yarborough, 201 N. C., 568. We find' nothing inconsistent in the verdict and his Honor’s refusal to set it aside as a matter of discretion is not reviewable.

There is no reversible error in the instruction complained of. The ordinance referred to is practically the same as the State law. Code, 1931, sec. 2621(58).

No error.

Crane v. . Carswell, 166 S.E. 746, 203 N.C. 555, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 34 (N.C. 1932).

Pincite

166 S.E. 746 (Crane v. . Carswell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related