Pigford v. Goldsboro Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Pigford v. Goldsboro Lumber Co.

102 S.E. 893, 179 N.C. 683, 1920 N.C. LEXIS 320

Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided March 10, 1920·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant moved to nonsuit in apt time upon the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to go to the jury tending to prove that plaintiffs’ property was burned as a result of defendant’s negligence. That is the only assignment of error. It is unnecessary to set out the evidence. It is largely circumstantial, but it is in our opinion amply sufficient in probation for us to warrant the judge in submitting the issues to the jury. Circumstantial evidence, as stated in Ashford v. Pittman, 160 N. C., 4Y, has often been allowed to determine more serious issues than those submitted in this ease.

No error.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant moved to nonsuit in apt time upon the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to go to the jury tending to prove that plaintiffs’ property was burned as a result of defendant’s negligence. That is the only assignment of error. It is unnecessary to set out the evidence. It is largely circumstantial, but it is in our opinion amply sufficient in probation for us to warrant the judge in submitting the issues to the jury. Circumstantial evidence, as stated in Ashford v. Pittman, 160 N. C., 4Y, has often been allowed to determine more serious issues than those submitted in this ease.

No error.

Pigford v. Goldsboro Lumber Co., 102 S.E. 893, 179 N.C. 683, 1920 N.C. LEXIS 320 (N.C. 1920).

Pincite

102 S.E. 893 (Pigford v. Goldsboro Lumber Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.