Smith v. Somers

213 N.C. 209
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided March 2, 1938·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Tbe law as to wbat is malicious prosecution and abuse of process is fully set forth in Ledford v. Smith, 212 N. C., 447.

Tbe sole question on tbis appeal is: Was tbe evidence in tbe court below sufficient to be submitted to tbe jury as to all tbe defendants? We tbink so. It is taken in tbe light most favorable to plaintiff. We think that by analogy tbis case is somewhat similar to Colvin v. Lumber Co., 198 N. C., 776. We will not set forth tbe evidence in detail as tbe case goes back to be tried in tbe court below. Tbe probative force of tbe evidence, including tbe circumstantial evidence, was not strong, but sufficient as to authorization and ratification to be submitted to tbe jury as to all of tbe defendants.

Por tbe reason given, tbe judgment of tbe court below is

Reversed.

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

Smith v. Somers, 213 N.C. 209 (N.C. 1938).

213 N.C. 209 (Smith v. Somers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stanback v. Stanback
254 S.E.2d 611 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1979)