Poindexter v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
160 S.E. 923, 201 N.C. 833, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 131
Opinion
Tbe plaintiff on bis appeal to this Court has failed to overcome tbe presumption against error. Tbe testimony of bis witnesses falls short of tbe desired result on appeal, because of its indefiniteness and uncertainty as to tbe origin of tbe fire.
Tbe burden is on appellant to show error. It is not presumed. Jackson v. Bell, ante, 336; Bailey v. McKay, 198 N. C., 638, 152 S. E., 893.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Poindexter v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 160 S.E. 923, 201 N.C. 833, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 131 (N.C. 1931).
160 S.E. 923 (Poindexter v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Cole v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
211 N.C. 591 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Cole v. . R. R.
191 S.E. 353 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Kelly v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
183 S.E. 376 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
LaNeve v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
176 S.E. 560 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
In Re Will of Wilder
171 S.E. 611 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
State v. . Garner
166 S.E. 180 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
State v. . Lea
164 S.E. 737 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
State v. Davis
203 N.C. 13 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
Baker v. . Clayton
164 S.E. 233 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
Mangum v. . Winstead
162 S.E. 557 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
Frazier v. Piedmont & Northern Railway Co.
161 S.E. 689 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)