Massey v. North Carolina Railroad

84 S.E. 1047, 169 N.C. 245, 1915 N.C. LEXIS 190
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided April 22, 1915·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per CuriaM.

The negligence of the defendant and its liability for damages is admitted. The only assignments of error relate to the refusal of his Honor to continue the case at the instance of the defendant, and to Ms Honor’s charge upon the question of damages. It is well settled that the continuance of the cause is within the sound discretion of the judge. We find nothing in this record denoting any abuse of such discretion. We have examined the charge of the court on the question of damages, and find it to be a correct expression of the law, as laid down by this Court in a number of cases. Burton v. R. R., 82 N. C., 507; Benton v. R. R., 122 N. C., 1009; Mendenhall v. R. R., 123 N. C., 278; Watson v. R. R., 133 N. C., 190; Ward v. R. R., 161 N. C., 186.

No error.

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

Massey v. North Carolina Railroad, 84 S.E. 1047, 169 N.C. 245, 1915 N.C. LEXIS 190 (N.C. 1915).

84 S.E. 1047 (Massey v. North Carolina Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bryant v. Woodlief
114 S.E.2d 241 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)
Davis v. Union Central Life Insurance
150 S.E. 120 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1929)
Gurley v. Southern Power Co.
90 S.E. 943 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1916)