Hawes v. Bladen Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Hawes v. Bladen Lumber Co.

90 S.E. 148, 172 N.C. 826, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 406

DecidedOctober 11, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 90 S.E. 148 (Hawes v. Bladen Lumber 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

Hawes v. Bladen Lumber Co., 90 S.E. 148, 172 N.C. 826, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 406 (N.C. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

BitowN, J.

This appeal involves tbe same questions that are discussed and decided in the case of L. H. Bradshaw v. Hilton Lumber Co., at this term, ante, 219, except tbe point at which tbe diameter is to be taken is fixed in tbe deed. In addition to tbe matters of law presented in that case, tbe defendant requested tbe court to charge tbe jury that there is no evidence in this case which would justify tbe jury in finding that the defendant wrongfully and unlawfully cut any timber or trees of tbe plaintiff, and that tbe jury should answer tbe first issue “No.”

Upon an examination of tbe evidence, we find that there is evidence sufficient to go to tbe jury and that bis Honor properly refused to give such instructions. We think it is needless to discuss tbe evidence or point it out in this opinion.

No error.

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

BitowN, J.

This appeal involves tbe same questions that are discussed and decided in the case of L. H. Bradshaw v. Hilton Lumber Co., at this term, ante, 219, except tbe point at which tbe diameter is to be taken is fixed in tbe deed. In addition to tbe matters of law presented in that case, tbe defendant requested tbe court to charge tbe jury that there is no evidence in this case which would justify tbe jury in finding that the defendant wrongfully and unlawfully cut any timber or trees of tbe plaintiff, and that tbe jury should answer tbe first issue “No.”

Upon an examination of tbe evidence, we find that there is evidence sufficient to go to tbe jury and that bis Honor properly refused to give such instructions. We think it is needless to discuss tbe evidence or point it out in this opinion.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 S.E. 148, 172 N.C. 826, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawes-v-bladen-lumber-co-nc-1916.