Denny v. . Snow

155 S.E. 874, 199 N.C. 773, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 248
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedNovember 26, 1930
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 155 S.E. 874 (Denny v. . Snow) 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
Denny v. . Snow, 155 S.E. 874, 199 N.C. 773, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 248 (N.C. 1930).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

At tbe close of plaintiff’s evidence and at tbe close of all tbe evidence, tbe defendant made motions in tbe court below for judgment as in case of nonsuit. O. S., 567. We think the motions should have been granted.

From a careful review of tbe evidence, we do not think it is of sufficient probative force to have been submitted to tbe jury. It raised a suspicion, a conjecture, a guess, a surmise, a speculation, but there must be more than this, more than a scintilla of evidence, to take a case to tbe jury, and we do not find it on this record.

“A verdict or finding must rest upon facts proved, or at least upon facts of which there is substantial evidence, and cannot rest upon mere surmise, speculation, conjecture, or suspicion. There must be legal evidence of every material fact necessary to support the verdict or finding, and such verdict or finding must be grounded on a reasonable certainty as to probabilities arising from a fair consideration of the evidence, and not a mere guess, or on possibilities.” 23 C. J., pp. 51-52. S. v. Johnson, ante, 429.

We see no reason to set forth the evidence. It was fully discussed and the case ably argued on the hearing. We have gone into the record fully and thoroughly, mindful of the fact that a jury has passed on the evidence, but with the responsibility resting on us we cannot say the evidence, which was wholly circumstantial, was sufficient for the court below to have submitted it to the jury. The judgment below is

Reversed.

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

Related

STARK EX REL. JACOBSEN v. Ford Motor Co.
723 S.E.2d 753 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2012)
Wall v. Trogdon
107 S.E.2d 757 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1959)
Fleming v. Twiggs
94 S.E.2d 821 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
Jenrette Transport Co. v. Atlantic Fire Insurance
73 S.E.2d 481 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
Foreman-Blades Lumber Co. v. City of Elizabeth City
41 S.E.2d 761 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1947)
Mitchell v. . Melts
18 S.E.2d 406 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)
Mills v. . Moore
12 S.E.2d 661 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1941)
Mercer v. . Powell
12 S.E.2d 227 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Cummings v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
6 S.E.2d 837 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Plyler v. Charlotte Country Club
199 S.E. 622 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Harris v. Schoonmaker
58 P.2d 415 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1936)
Jones v. Bagwell
207 N.C. 378 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
Lynch v. . Telephone Co.
167 S.E. 847 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
Lynch ex rel. Lynch v. Carolina Telephone & Telegraph Co.
204 N.C. 252 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
Broughton v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey
159 S.E. 321 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)
Shuford v. . Brown
158 S.E. 698 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
155 S.E. 874, 199 N.C. 773, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denny-v-snow-nc-1930.