Gaskins v. . Mitchell

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Gaskins v. . Mitchell

141 S.E. 926, 195 N.C. 851, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 223

DecidedFebruary 29, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 141 S.E. 926 (Gaskins v. . Mitchell) 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

Gaskins v. . Mitchell, 141 S.E. 926, 195 N.C. 851, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 223 (N.C. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

*852 Per Curiam.

The issues submitted to the jury and their answers thereto were as follows:

“1. Are the defendants indebted to the plaintiff, as alleged in the complaint, and if so, in what sum? Answer: No.

“2. Did the plaintiff warrant the said water system to giye satisfaction and furnish a sufficient supply of water for the operation of a soda fountain, as alleged in the answer? Answer: Yes.

“3. If so, did the said water system fail to furnish a sufficient supply of water for the operation of said soda fountain, as alleged ? Answer: Yes.

“4. If so, what damages are the defendants entitled to recover of the plaintiff by reason thereof? Answer: Not any. Mr. E. Y. Gaskins shall have his water plant back;”

This action was here before. Gaskins v. Mitchell, 194 N. C., 275. The proper issues were submitted to the jury in accordance with the former opinion of the action.

It was a question of fact for the jury. On the whole record, if error, it was harmless and not prejudicial.

No error.

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