Rose v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

210 N.C. 834
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided October 14, 1936·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment of nonsuit must be affirmed on authority of Goldstein v. R. R., 203 N. C., 166, 165 S. E., 337, and Weston v. R. R., 194 N. C., 210, 139 S. E., 237. These cases are controlling upon the facts presently appearing of record.

The case of Dickey v. R. R., 196 N. C., 726, 147 S. E., 15, cited and relied upon by plaintiffs, is distinguishable in that no town ordinance was being violated by the defendant at the time of the accident as was the situation in Biekey s case, supra.

The pertinent authorities are assembled in Sessoms v. R. R., 208 N. C., 844, 182 S. E., 112.

Affirmed.

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

Rose v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, 210 N.C. 834 (N.C. 1936).

210 N.C. 834 (Rose v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Southern Pac. Co. v. Haight
126 F.2d 900 (Ninth Circuit, 1942)