Pruitt v. Ray

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Pruitt v. Ray

52 S.E.2d 876, 230 N.C. 322, 1949 N.C. LEXIS 610

Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided April 20, 1949·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinion

Per CuRiam.

The only question involved on this appeal is whether or not- the court below committed error in denying plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial.

The plaintiff’s contentions were submitted to the jury on a proper issue and in a charge which he concedes to be free from error.

There was no question of law or legal inference involved in the motion lodged below. Consequently it was addressed to the sound discretion of *323 tbe trial judge, whose ruling, in the absence of abuse of discretion, is not reviewable on appeal. No abuse of discretion is shown. G.S. 1-207; Ziglar v, Ziglar, 226 N.C. 102, 36 S.E. 2d 657; Anderson v. Holland, 209 N.C. 746, 184 S.E. 480.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.

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

Per CuRiam.

The only question involved on this appeal is whether or not- the court below committed error in denying plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial.

The plaintiff’s contentions were submitted to the jury on a proper issue and in a charge which he concedes to be free from error.

There was no question of law or legal inference involved in the motion lodged below. Consequently it was addressed to the sound discretion of *323 tbe trial judge, whose ruling, in the absence of abuse of discretion, is not reviewable on appeal. No abuse of discretion is shown. G.S. 1-207; Ziglar v, Ziglar, 226 N.C. 102, 36 S.E. 2d 657; Anderson v. Holland, 209 N.C. 746, 184 S.E. 480.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.

Pruitt v. Ray, 52 S.E.2d 876, 230 N.C. 322, 1949 N.C. LEXIS 610 (N.C. 1949).

Pincite

52 S.E.2d 876 (Pruitt v. Ray) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related