Messick v. Turnage
This text of 83 S.E.2d 654 (Messick v. Turnage) 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.
Opinion
The negligence sufficiently pleaded in the complaint is to the effect that the defendant “knew or should have known . . . that said roof was leaking and in bad repair . . .” There is not a suggestion in the evidence that the roof was leaking and in bad repair. It was incumbent upon the plaintiff not only to prove negligence proximately causing her injury, but it was her duty to prove negligence substantially as alleged in her complaint. This she failed to do. Proof without. allegation is as unavailing as allegation without proof. Smith v. Barnes, 236 N.C. 176, 72 S.E. 2d 216; Bowen v. Darden, 233 N.C. 443, 64 S.E. 2d 285.
The judgment of the Superior Court of Beaufort County is
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
83 S.E.2d 654, 240 N.C. 625, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/messick-v-turnage-nc-1954.