Grant v. Artis

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Grant v. Artis

116 S.E.2d 383, 253 N.C. 226, 1960 N.C. LEXIS 478

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 19, 1960

Docket306

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 116 S.E.2d 383 (Grant v. Artis) 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

Grant v. Artis, 116 S.E.2d 383, 253 N.C. 226, 1960 N.C. LEXIS 478 (N.C. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER Cüeiam:.

The male defendant Walter Artis, individually, does not deny owing the amount plaintiff sues for. The feme defendant Geneva Artis contends that she and her husband made no contract with plaintiff, that the contract was entered into between plaintiff and her husband, and assigns as error the overruling of her motion for judgment of involuntary nonsuit renewed at the close of all the evidence. Accepting plaintiff’s evidence as true, and considering his evidence in the light most favorable to him, and giving to him the *228 benefit of' every reasonable intendment upon the evidence and every legitimate inference to be drawn therefrom, as we are required to do in passing on the feme defendant’s motion for judgment of involuntary nonsuit, (Smith v. Rawlins, 253 N.C. 67, ...... S.E. 2d ......), it permits the reasonable inference that the contract for the furnishing and installation of the electrical equipment in the dwelling house owned by the defendants by the entireties was made and entered into by and between plaintiff and both of the defendants. The lower court properly overruled the feme defendant’s motion for judgment of involuntary nonsuit renewed at the close of all the evidence.

There is no exception to the evidence. The feme defendant has one assignment of error to the charge. This is without merit, and is overruled.

The feme defendant assigns as error the refusal of the trial court to set aside the verdict, as being against the greater weight of the evidence, and contrary to law. Feme defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence was addressed to the sound discretion of the court, Wynne v. Allen, 245 N.C. 421, 96 S.E. 2d 422, whose ruling, in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion is not reviewable on appeal, Frye & Sons, Inc. v. Francis, 242 N.C. 107, 86 S.E. 2d 790. No such abuse of discretion is shown. There is no merit in the contention that the verdict is contrary to law. This assignment of error is overruled.

.The other assignment of error is formal. In the trial below we find

No error.

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

PER Cüeiam:.

The male defendant Walter Artis, individually, does not deny owing the amount plaintiff sues for. The feme defendant Geneva Artis contends that she and her husband made no contract with plaintiff, that the contract was entered into between plaintiff and her husband, and assigns as error the overruling of her motion for judgment of involuntary nonsuit renewed at the close of all the evidence. Accepting plaintiff’s evidence as true, and considering his evidence in the light most favorable to him, and giving to him the *228 benefit of' every reasonable intendment upon the evidence and every legitimate inference to be drawn therefrom, as we are required to do in passing on the feme defendant’s motion for judgment of involuntary nonsuit, (Smith v. Rawlins, 253 N.C. 67, ...... S.E. 2d ......), it permits the reasonable inference that the contract for the furnishing and installation of the electrical equipment in the dwelling house owned by the defendants by the entireties was made and entered into by and between plaintiff and both of the defendants. The lower court properly overruled the feme defendant’s motion for judgment of involuntary nonsuit renewed at the close of all the evidence.

There is no exception to the evidence. The feme defendant has one assignment of error to the charge. This is without merit, and is overruled.

The feme defendant assigns as error the refusal of the trial court to set aside the verdict, as being against the greater weight of the evidence, and contrary to law. Feme defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence was addressed to the sound discretion of the court, Wynne v. Allen, 245 N.C. 421, 96 S.E. 2d 422, whose ruling, in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion is not reviewable on appeal, Frye & Sons, Inc. v. Francis, 242 N.C. 107, 86 S.E. 2d 790. No such abuse of discretion is shown. There is no merit in the contention that the verdict is contrary to law. This assignment of error is overruled.

.The other assignment of error is formal. In the trial below we find

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 S.E.2d 383, 253 N.C. 226, 1960 N.C. LEXIS 478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-v-artis-nc-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack