Oberly & Newell Lithograph Corp. v. Clark

199 S.E. 398, 214 N.C. 400, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 361
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided November 9, 1938·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The evidence is not all one way. It is conflicting on the issue of defendant’s liability. It was error, therefore, for the court to instruct the jury peremptorily in favor of the plaintiff. Brooks v. Ins. Co., 211 N. C., 274, 189 S. E., 787. The rule is, that where the evidence is conflicting, or if diverse inferences may reasonably be drawn therefrom, some favorable to the plaintiffs and others favorable to the defendant, the cause should be submitted to the jury for final determination. In re West, 212 N. C., 189, 193 S. E., 134; Hobbs v. Mann, 199 N. C., 532, 155 S. E., 163.

For the error, as indicated, a new trial must be awarded. It is so ordered.

New trial.

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

Oberly & Newell Lithograph Corp. v. Clark, 199 S.E. 398, 214 N.C. 400, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 361 (N.C. 1938).

199 S.E. 398 (Oberly & Newell Lithograph Corp. v. Clark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rushing v. Polk
128 S.E.2d 675 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1962)
Graham v. North Carolina Butane Gas Co.
58 S.E.2d 757 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
Wooten v. . Smith
200 S.E. 921 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)