Keith v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co.

178 S.E. 90, 207 N.C. 645, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 231
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 28, 1935
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 178 S.E. 90 (Keith v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco 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
Keith v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co., 178 S.E. 90, 207 N.C. 645, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 231 (N.C. 1935).

Opinion

OlaeKson, J.

The principle involved in this case is set forth in Corum v. Tobacco Co., 205 N. C., 213. This decision was cited with approval in Straughn v. Coca-Cola Co., 205 N. C., 836. In the Corum case, supra, the evidence was (p. 214) : “The defendant manufactures a brand of plug or chewing tobacco known as 'Apple Sun-cured.’ It sold some of this tobacco to J. W. Smitherman, a wholesale merchant in Winston-Salem, who in turn sold it to Norman Brothers at East Bend, in Yadkin County. On 4 June, 1931, the plaintiff bought a plug of it from Norman Brothers.” The evidence in that action was sufficient to be submitted to the jury to show a complete chain from the manufacturer to the consumer. There is no sufficient evidence in the present action to be submitted to the jury on this aspect, and therefore there was no error in the judgment of nonsuit in the court below.

The judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.

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

Related

Enloe v. Charlotte Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
180 S.E. 582 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
178 S.E. 90, 207 N.C. 645, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keith-v-liggett-myers-tobacco-co-nc-1935.