Mull Ex Rel. Mull v. Mock

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Mull Ex Rel. Mull v. Mock

148 S.E. 925, 197 N.C. 785, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 374

DecidedMay 29, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 148 S.E. 925 (Mull Ex Rel. Mull v. Mock) 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

Mull Ex Rel. Mull v. Mock, 148 S.E. 925, 197 N.C. 785, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 374 (N.C. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

PeR Curiam.

Tbe plaintiff brought suit to recover damages for personal injury alleged to bave been caused by tbe negligence of tbe defendants. There was evidence tending to show that on 80 June, 1928, tbe plaintiff, a girl 13 years of age, was returning to her home on highway No. 10, and that she was struck by a truck belonging to tbe defendants and operated by one of their employees. Tbe defense was that tbe plaintiff’s injury was caused solely by tbe negligence of a man named Morgan who was driving bis automobile on tbe highway. Tbe controversy was reduced practically to issues of fact, which were submitted to tbe jury and answered in favor of tbe plaintiff. We bave examined tbe exceptions of tbe appellants and bave been unable to find any substantial ground for a new trial.

No error.

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

PeR Curiam.

Tbe plaintiff brought suit to recover damages for personal injury alleged to bave been caused by tbe negligence of tbe defendants. There was evidence tending to show that on 80 June, 1928, tbe plaintiff, a girl 13 years of age, was returning to her home on highway No. 10, and that she was struck by a truck belonging to tbe defendants and operated by one of their employees. Tbe defense was that tbe plaintiff’s injury was caused solely by tbe negligence of a man named Morgan who was driving bis automobile on tbe highway. Tbe controversy was reduced practically to issues of fact, which were submitted to tbe jury and answered in favor of tbe plaintiff. We bave examined tbe exceptions of tbe appellants and bave been unable to find any substantial ground for a new trial.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 S.E. 925, 197 N.C. 785, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mull-ex-rel-mull-v-mock-nc-1929.