Rich v. Andrews Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Rich v. Andrews Manufacturing Co.

130 S.E. 610, 190 N.C. 877, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 232

DecidedDecember 23, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 130 S.E. 610 (Rich v. Andrews Manufacturing 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

Rich v. Andrews Manufacturing Co., 130 S.E. 610, 190 N.C. 877, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 232 (N.C. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

Tbe controversy on trial narrowed itself principally to issues of fact, which tbe jury alone could determine. Tbe chief assignment of error, or tbe one most strongly urged on tbe argument and in tbe brief, is tbe one addressed to tbe refusal of tbe court to grant tbe defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit, made first at tbe close of plaintiff’s evidence and renewed at tbe close of all tbe evidence. Viewing tbe 'evidence in its most favorable light for tbe plaintiff, tbe *878 accepted position on a motion of tbis kind, we tbink tbe trial court was-justified in submitting tbe case to tbe jury, and tbat tbe verdict is fully warranted, thereby.

No benefit would be derived from detailing tbe testimony of tbe several witnesses, as tbe principal question before us'is whether it is sufficient to carry tbe case to tbe jury, and we tbink it is.

Tbe charge is largely a recapitulation of tbe contentions of tbe parties; but taking it as a whole, we are constrained to believe tbat, on tbe facts of tbe present record, it is not a sufficient departure from tbe requirements of C. S., 564, to necessitate a new trial.

Tbe verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.

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

Pee Cueiam.

Tbe controversy on trial narrowed itself principally to issues of fact, which tbe jury alone could determine. Tbe chief assignment of error, or tbe one most strongly urged on tbe argument and in tbe brief, is tbe one addressed to tbe refusal of tbe court to grant tbe defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit, made first at tbe close of plaintiff’s evidence and renewed at tbe close of all tbe evidence. Viewing tbe 'evidence in its most favorable light for tbe plaintiff, tbe *878 accepted position on a motion of tbis kind, we tbink tbe trial court was-justified in submitting tbe case to tbe jury, and tbat tbe verdict is fully warranted, thereby.

No benefit would be derived from detailing tbe testimony of tbe several witnesses, as tbe principal question before us'is whether it is sufficient to carry tbe case to tbe jury, and we tbink it is.

Tbe charge is largely a recapitulation of tbe contentions of tbe parties; but taking it as a whole, we are constrained to believe tbat, on tbe facts of tbe present record, it is not a sufficient departure from tbe requirements of C. S., 564, to necessitate a new trial.

Tbe verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 S.E. 610, 190 N.C. 877, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rich-v-andrews-manufacturing-co-nc-1925.