Osborne Ex Rel. Osborne v. Bundy

127 S.E. 516, 189 N.C. 837, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 422
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedApril 15, 1925
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 127 S.E. 516 (Osborne Ex Rel. Osborne v. Bundy) 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
Osborne Ex Rel. Osborne v. Bundy, 127 S.E. 516, 189 N.C. 837, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 422 (N.C. 1925).

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

Tbe defendant is engaged in tbe mercantile business at Oakdale Cotton Mills and operates a Ford car for tbe delivery of packages, and is sued for personal injury alleged to bave been caused by tbe negligence of bis driver. An inspection of tbe record reveals no sufficient evidence of actionable negligence, and for tbis reason tbe judgment is ,

Affirmed.

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

Related

Hunt ex rel. Hunt v. Wooten
76 S.E.2d 326 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)
Hunt v. Wooten
76 S.E.2d 326 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 S.E. 516, 189 N.C. 837, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osborne-ex-rel-osborne-v-bundy-nc-1925.