Dickerson v. . Reynolds

172 S.E. 402, 205 N.C. 770, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 65

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: January 24, 1934
• Status: Published

Opinion

Stacy, O. J.

Whose servant or agent was Walter Aiken at the time of the collision, the defendant’s or her son’s? The case turns on the answer to this question. It may be resolved either way by the record. This makes it a case for the jury. Parrish v. Armour Co., 200 N. C., 654, 158 S. E., 188.

The rule is, that, on a motion to nonsuit, the evidence which makes for the plaintiff’s claim, or tends to support his cause of action, is to be taken in its most favorable light for the plaintiff, and he is “entitled to the benefit of every reasonable intendment upon the evidence and every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom.” Christman v. Hilliard, 167 N. C., 4, 82 S. E., 949; Nash v. Royster, 189 N. C., 408, 127 S. E., 356; Hill v. Ins. Co., 200 N. C., 115, 156 S. E., 518; Hamilton v. R. R., 200 N. C., 543, 158 S. E., 75.

We are not unmindful of the strength of the argument which points in the opposite direction, but the inferences to be drawn from the evidence are matters properly to be considered by the jury. McGee v. Crawford, ante, 318; Grier v. Woodside, 200 N. C., 759, 158 S. E., 491. It is ours only to determine whether the evidence is fit to be submitted to the twelve. Its credibility is for them. The cases cited and relied upon by the defendant are not controlling on the present record.

The learned judge who tried the cases thought the evidence sufficient to support the verdicts. His refusal to nonsuit the cases is supported by the apposite decisions on the subject.

No error.