McLeod v. Lexington Coca-Cola Bottling Co.

212 N.C. 671
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided December 15, 1937·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Pee CubiaM.

Taking the testimony in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there is failure of proof requisite in cases of this character as set forth in Enloe v. Bottling Co., 208 N. C., 305, 180 S. E., 582, and cases therein cited. The bottled drink in question was “ginger ale.” There is no evidence tending to show that in like products manufactured under substantially the same conditions and sold'by the defendant “at about the same time” contained foreign or deleterious substances. Perry v. Bottling Co., 196 N. C., 175, 145 S. E., 14; Enloe v. Bottling Co., supra; Blackwell v. Bottling Co., 208 N. C., 751, 182 S. E., 469; Collins v. Bottling Co., 209 N. C., 821, 184 S. E., 834.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.

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

McLeod v. Lexington Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 212 N.C. 671 (N.C. 1937).

212 N.C. 671 (McLeod v. Lexington Coca-Cola Bottling Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Penn v. Inferno Manufacturing Corporation
199 So. 2d 210 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1967)