Harrelson v. . Bottling Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Harrelson v. . Bottling Co.

182 S.E. 109, 208 N.C. 704, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 103

DecidedNovember 1, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 182 S.E. 109 (Harrelson v. . Bottling Co.) 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

Harrelson v. . Bottling Co., 182 S.E. 109, 208 N.C. 704, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 103 (N.C. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff and caused, as alleged in the complaint, by the negligence of the defendant.

At the close of all the evidence the defendant moved for judgment dismissing the action as of nonsuit. The motion was allowed. The plaintiff did not except to the order allowing the motion. There was judgment dismissing the action as of nonsuit.

The plaintiff excepted to the judgment and appealed to the Supreme Court. The plaintiff did not except to the order of the trial court, allowing the motion of the defendant, at the close of all the evidence, for judgment as of nonsuit. For this reason, the order is not subject to review by this Court.

The only exception in the record is to the judgment. As there is no error in the judgment, it must be affirmed. McCoy v. Trust Co.,204 N.C. 721, 169 S.E. 644, and cases there cited.

Affirmed.

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