Muse v. Muse

66 S.E.2d 689, 234 N.C. 205, 1951 N.C. LEXIS 425
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided September 26, 1951·No. 92·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Ebvin, J.

When no matter of law or legal inference is involved, the granting or refusing a new trial upon all or any one of the issues rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge. G.S. 1-207; Hawley v. Powell, 222 N.C. 713, 24 S.E. 2d 523; Campbell v. Laundry, 190 N.C. 649, 130 S.E. 638; Billings v. Observer, 150 N.C. 540, 64 S.E. 435; Jarrett v. Trunk Co., 144 N.C. 299, 56 S.E. 937; Benton v. Collins, 125 N.C. 83, 34 S.E. 242, 47 L.R.A. 33; McIntosh on North Carolina Practice and Procedure in Civil Cases, section 611. The record does not indicate that the judge abused his discretion in setting aside the verdict on the third issue and in awarding a partial new trial limited to that issue. Indeed, it supports the contrary conclusion. Inasmuch as no judgment has been entered in the cause, the present appeal is premature, and must be dismissed. Hawley v. Powell, supra.

Appeal dismissed.

ValeNTINE, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Muse v. Muse, 66 S.E.2d 689, 234 N.C. 205, 1951 N.C. LEXIS 425 (N.C. 1951).

66 S.E.2d 689 (Muse v. Muse) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hunt v. Cranford
117 S.E.2d 18 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)
Muse v. Muse
72 S.E.2d 431 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
Poniros v. Nello L. Teer Co.
72 S.E.2d 9 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)