Ray v. Hill Veneer Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Ray v. Hill Veneer Co.

119 S.E. 925, 186 N.C. 773, 1923 N.C. LEXIS 349

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Ray v. Hill Veneer Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 188 N.C. 414 →

Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided November 7, 1923·Published

Opinion

Pee OueiaM.

Without stating the facts, some of which are in dispute, we are convinced, from a careful perusal of the record, viewing *774 the evidence in its most favorable light for the plaintiff, the accepted position on a motion -to nonsuit, that the case should have been submitted to the jury. No benefit would be derived from detailing the evidence, some of which is denied by the defendant, as the only question before us is whether or not it is sufficient to carry the case to the jury, and we think it is.

The judgment of nonsuit will be set aside and the case remanded for another trial.

Reversed.

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

Pee OueiaM.

Without stating the facts, some of which are in dispute, we are convinced, from a careful perusal of the record, viewing *774 the evidence in its most favorable light for the plaintiff, the accepted position on a motion -to nonsuit, that the case should have been submitted to the jury. No benefit would be derived from detailing the evidence, some of which is denied by the defendant, as the only question before us is whether or not it is sufficient to carry the case to the jury, and we think it is.

The judgment of nonsuit will be set aside and the case remanded for another trial.

Reversed.

Ray v. Hill Veneer Co., 119 S.E. 925, 186 N.C. 773, 1923 N.C. LEXIS 349 (N.C. 1923).

Pincite

119 S.E. 925 (Ray v. Hill Veneer Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.