Herring v. . Warwick

74 S.E. 101, 158 N.C. 592, 1912 N.C. LEXIS 92
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided March 20, 1912·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

P®R Cubiam.

This cause was before the Court at Spring Term, 1911, 155 N. C., 346. The facts are all fully stated and the case fully discussed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Walker, rendered for the Court. A new trial was granted because the verdict was rendered in one essential particular under the influence of one erroneous instruction.

In granting the new trial, and considering the case on the former appeal, we necessarily considered all the evidence then produced, and a motion for a judgment of nonsuit was inferentially denied. ’ The evidence in this regard is much stronger than that presented upon the former appeal, and we think his Honor carefully followed the former decision of this Court, *594 and we find in bis rulings upon tbe evidence, and in bis charge to tbe jury, no substantial error wbicb we tbink would warrant us in ordering another trial. Tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court is

Affirmed.

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

Herring v. . Warwick, 74 S.E. 101, 158 N.C. 592, 1912 N.C. LEXIS 92 (N.C. 1912).

74 S.E. 101 (Herring v. . Warwick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pintsch Compressing Co. v. Buffalo Gas Co.
280 F. 830 (Second Circuit, 1922)