Sessoms v. . R. R.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Sessoms v. . R. R.

182 S.E. 112, 208 N.C. 844, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 165

Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided November 1, 1935·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Civil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury resulting from crossing collision when the automobile in which plaintiff was riding as a guest — returning from a dance at White Lake — was driven into a box car of defendant's freight train standing across the highway at Garland, N.C. at about 2:05 a.m. on the morning of 16 May, 1933.

The plaintiff invokes the doctrine announced in Dickey v. R. R.,196 N.C. 726, 147 S.E. 15; Dudley v. R. R., 180 N.C. 34,103 S.E. 905; Blum v. R. R., 187 N.C. 640, 122 S.E. 562; Leathers v. TobaccoCo., 144 N.C. 330, 57 S.E. 11; Duffy v. R. R., ib., 26,56 S.E. 557; Alexander v. R. R., 112 N.C. 720, 16 S.E. 896.

The defendant relies upon the decisions in Baker v. R. R., 205 N.C. 329,171 S.E. 342; Batchelor v. R. R., 196 N.C. 84, 144 S.E. 542;Eller v. R. R., 200 N.C. 527, 157 S.E. 800; Goldstein, v. R. R.,203 N.C. 166, 165 S.E. 337; Herman v. R. R., 197 N.C. 718,150 S.E. 361; Weston v. Ry. Co., 194 N.C. 210, 139 S.E. 237.

From a judgment of nonsuit entered at the close of all the evidence, the plaintiff appeals, assigning errors. *Page 845 The Court being equally divided in opinion, Brogden, J., not sitting, the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed in accordance with the usual practice in such cases, and stands as the decision in this case without becoming a precedent. Smith v. Powell, ante, 837; Sondey v. Yates, ante, 836.

Affirmed.

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

Civil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury resulting from crossing collision when the automobile in which plaintiff was riding as a guest — returning from a dance at White Lake — was driven into a box car of defendant's freight train standing across the highway at Garland, N.C. at about 2:05 a.m. on the morning of 16 May, 1933.

The plaintiff invokes the doctrine announced in Dickey v. R. R.,196 N.C. 726, 147 S.E. 15; Dudley v. R. R., 180 N.C. 34,103 S.E. 905; Blum v. R. R., 187 N.C. 640, 122 S.E. 562; Leathers v. TobaccoCo., 144 N.C. 330, 57 S.E. 11; Duffy v. R. R., ib., 26,56 S.E. 557; Alexander v. R. R., 112 N.C. 720, 16 S.E. 896.

The defendant relies upon the decisions in Baker v. R. R., 205 N.C. 329,171 S.E. 342; Batchelor v. R. R., 196 N.C. 84, 144 S.E. 542;Eller v. R. R., 200 N.C. 527, 157 S.E. 800; Goldstein, v. R. R.,203 N.C. 166, 165 S.E. 337; Herman v. R. R., 197 N.C. 718,150 S.E. 361; Weston v. Ry. Co., 194 N.C. 210, 139 S.E. 237.

From a judgment of nonsuit entered at the close of all the evidence, the plaintiff appeals, assigning errors. *Page 845 The Court being equally divided in opinion, Brogden, J., not sitting, the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed in accordance with the usual practice in such cases, and stands as the decision in this case without becoming a precedent. Smith v. Powell, ante, 837; Sondey v. Yates, ante, 836.

Affirmed.

Sessoms v. . R. R., 182 S.E. 112, 208 N.C. 844, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 165 (N.C. 1935).

Pincite

182 S.E. 112 (Sessoms v. . R. R.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related