Hunsucker v. Norcott Mills Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Hunsucker v. Norcott Mills Co.

150 S.E. 512, 198 N.C. 811, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 449

DecidedDecember 4, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 150 S.E. 512 (Hunsucker v. Norcott Mills 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

Hunsucker v. Norcott Mills Co., 150 S.E. 512, 198 N.C. 811, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 449 (N.C. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

Plaintiff brong-bt suit to recover damages for personal injury alleged to have been inflicted through the negligence of the defendants. The material allegations of the complaint were denied by the answer. The two issues of negligence and damages were answered in favor of the plaintiff who- recovered judgment upon the verdict. The only two questions presented by the appeal are (1) whether an issue as to contributory negligence should have been submitted to the jury, and (2) whether the action should have been dismissed as in ease of non-suit. We are of opinion that upon each of these questions the ruling of the trial court was correct and that the action has been disposed of in substantial compliance with the requirements of the law. ■

We find no error justifying a new trial.

No error.

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

Pee Curiam.

Plaintiff brong-bt suit to recover damages for personal injury alleged to have been inflicted through the negligence of the defendants. The material allegations of the complaint were denied by the answer. The two issues of negligence and damages were answered in favor of the plaintiff who- recovered judgment upon the verdict. The only two questions presented by the appeal are (1) whether an issue as to contributory negligence should have been submitted to the jury, and (2) whether the action should have been dismissed as in ease of non-suit. We are of opinion that upon each of these questions the ruling of the trial court was correct and that the action has been disposed of in substantial compliance with the requirements of the law. ■

We find no error justifying a new trial.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 S.E. 512, 198 N.C. 811, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunsucker-v-norcott-mills-co-nc-1929.