Hewitt v. . Urich

187 S.E. 759, 210 N.C. 835, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 254
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided October 14, 1936·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There was no error in consolidating the two actions for trial. Fleming v. Holleman, 190 N. C., 449; Ins. Co. v. R. R., 179 N. C., 255. Nor can the exceptions to the judge’s charge be sustained. The instructions to the jury relative to the speed of the automobile were in accord with the decisions of this Court in S. v. Webber, ante, 137, and S. v. Spencer, 209 N. C., 827. The charge of the court as to the skidding of an automobile was free from error (Springs v. Doll, 197 N. C., 240; Waller v. Hipp, 208 N. C., 117), and the rule applicable to sudden emergencies was properly stated. Ingle v. Cassady, 208 N. C., 497; Luttrell v. Hardin, 193 N. C., 266.

Issues of fact were raised and these have been decided by the jury against the plaintiffs. In the trial we find

No error.

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

Hewitt v. . Urich, 187 S.E. 759, 210 N.C. 835, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 254 (N.C. 1936).

187 S.E. 759 (Hewitt v. . Urich) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Horton v. . Perry
49 S.E.2d 734 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
Peeples v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad
46 S.E.2d 649 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
Hoke v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp.
42 S.E.2d 593 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1947)
Kalte v. City of Lexington
197 S.E. 691 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)