Roberson v. Abbitt

224 N.C. 853
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided March 8, 1944·Published

Opinion

Pee CtjeiaM.

The case was tried on the principles announced in Fuller v. R. R., 214 N. C., 648, 200 S. E., 403; Edgerton v. R. R., 203 N. C., 281, 165 S. E., 689; Farming Co. v. R. R., 189 N. C., 63, 126 S. E., 167; and Hinkle v. R. R., 126 N. C., 932, 36 S. E., 348, which was as favorable to the plaintiff as he could expect. The defendant was a contract carrier, but not a common carrier. There was no error in the placing of the burden of proof. Speas v. Bank, 188 N. C., 524, 125 S. E., 398; Hosiery Co. v. Express Co., 184 N. C., 478, 114 S. E., 823.

The verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.

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

Roberson v. Abbitt, 224 N.C. 853 (N.C. 1944).

224 N.C. 853 (Roberson v. Abbitt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Skyland Hosiery Co. v. American Railway Express Co.
114 S.E. 823 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1922)
Edgerton v. Southern Railway Co.
165 S.E. 689 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
Speas v. Merchants Bank & Trust Co.
125 S.E. 398 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1924)
Hinkle v. . R. R.
36 S.E. 348 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1900)
Fuller v. Virginia & Carolina Southern Railroad
200 S.E. 403 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
Farming Co. v. . R. R.
126 S.E. 167 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)