McKeller v. . Martin

Supreme Court of North Carolina

McKeller v. . Martin

187 S.E. 555, 210 N.C. 830, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 248

DecidedSeptember 23, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 187 S.E. 555 (McKeller v. . Martin) 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

McKeller v. . Martin, 187 S.E. 555, 210 N.C. 830, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 248 (N.C. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appellant assigns as error the following excerpt from his Honor’s charge: “If you answer the (first) issue ‘Yes,’ you will proceed to the consideration of the second issue as to the damages sustained, if any, but if you fail to find by the greater weight of the evidence that the defendant was guilty of negligence, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury, then you will answer the first issue ‘Yes’; otherwise, you will answer it ‘No.’” The error is obvious. His Honor used the word “Yes” where he should have *831 used tbe word “No,” and “No” where be should have used “Yes.” This error, evidently due to inadvertence, was one of the unavoidable casualties of the circuit, but, being material, it entitles the defendants to a new trial.

Error.

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

Per Curiam.

The appellant assigns as error the following excerpt from his Honor’s charge: “If you answer the (first) issue ‘Yes,’ you will proceed to the consideration of the second issue as to the damages sustained, if any, but if you fail to find by the greater weight of the evidence that the defendant was guilty of negligence, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury, then you will answer the first issue ‘Yes’; otherwise, you will answer it ‘No.’” The error is obvious. His Honor used the word “Yes” where he should have *831 used tbe word “No,” and “No” where be should have used “Yes.” This error, evidently due to inadvertence, was one of the unavoidable casualties of the circuit, but, being material, it entitles the defendants to a new trial.

Error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 S.E. 555, 210 N.C. 830, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckeller-v-martin-nc-1936.