Pigford v. Goldsboro Lumber Co.

102 S.E. 893, 179 N.C. 683, 1920 N.C. LEXIS 320
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMarch 10, 1920
StatusPublished

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

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
102 S.E. 893, 179 N.C. 683, 1920 N.C. LEXIS 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pigford-v-goldsboro-lumber-co-nc-1920.