Muse v. Muse
This text of 66 S.E.2d 689 (Muse v. Muse) 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
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
66 S.E.2d 689, 234 N.C. 205, 1951 N.C. LEXIS 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muse-v-muse-nc-1951.