Mahaffey v. Forsyth Furniture Lines, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Mahaffey v. Forsyth Furniture Lines, Inc.

145 S.E. 923, 196 N.C. 810, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 414

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 7, 1928

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 145 S.E. 923 (Mahaffey v. Forsyth Furniture Lines, Inc.) 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

Mahaffey v. Forsyth Furniture Lines, Inc., 145 S.E. 923, 196 N.C. 810, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 414 (N.C. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cubiam.

This is a civil action for actionable negligence, tried before the judge and a jury, in the Forsyth County Court. All the issues were found in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant assigned numerous errors and appealed to the Superior Court. The court below was of the opinion that they were “without merit, and that there was no error committed in the admission or the exclusion of testimony, or in the charge of the court as set forth in said assignments, and all of said exceptions are therefore overruled.” In this we think there was no error.

From the judgment of the Superior Court the defendant appealed to this Court, assigning the same errors.

It will be noted that the jury accepted plaintiff’s version of the matter. From a careful perusal of the record, we can find no prejudicial or reversible error. The judge of the Forsyth County Court tried the case with care. The contentions on both sides were clearly and fairly given. The law applicable to- the facts on every phase of the case was expounded to the jury. The principles involved in this case are well settled in this jurisdiction. See Boswell v. Hosiery Mills, 191 N. C., p. 549; Maulden v. Chair Co., ante, 122; Street v. Coal Co., ante, 178. The judgment below is

Affirmed.

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

Pee Cubiam.

This is a civil action for actionable negligence, tried before the judge and a jury, in the Forsyth County Court. All the issues were found in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant assigned numerous errors and appealed to the Superior Court. The court below was of the opinion that they were “without merit, and that there was no error committed in the admission or the exclusion of testimony, or in the charge of the court as set forth in said assignments, and all of said exceptions are therefore overruled.” In this we think there was no error.

From the judgment of the Superior Court the defendant appealed to this Court, assigning the same errors.

It will be noted that the jury accepted plaintiff’s version of the matter. From a careful perusal of the record, we can find no prejudicial or reversible error. The judge of the Forsyth County Court tried the case with care. The contentions on both sides were clearly and fairly given. The law applicable to- the facts on every phase of the case was expounded to the jury. The principles involved in this case are well settled in this jurisdiction. See Boswell v. Hosiery Mills, 191 N. C., p. 549; Maulden v. Chair Co., ante, 122; Street v. Coal Co., ante, 178. The judgment below is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 S.E. 923, 196 N.C. 810, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahaffey-v-forsyth-furniture-lines-inc-nc-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack