Hewitt v. . Urich
This text of 187 S.E. 759 (Hewitt v. . Urich) 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.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
187 S.E. 759, 210 N.C. 835, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hewitt-v-urich-nc-1936.