Somers v. Universal Credit Co.
This text of 201 N.C. 601 (Somers v. Universal Credit 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.
Opinion
We have discovered no evidence sufficient to sustain tbe answer to tbe third issue. His Honor instructed tbe jury to award punitive damages if they found from tbe evidence that tbe defendant seized tbe car in a rude and oppressive manner indicating malice, wantonness, and ill-will. Tbe plaintiff testified that be laid tbe car key on bis counter and said to tbe defendant’s agent, “If be desired to take it, there it was; if be wanted to take tbe car, there was tbe key; if be desired to take it, there it was.” This was equivalent to consent.
Tbe jury awarded compensatory damages possibly because tbe plaintiff subsequently told tbe agent not to take tbe car away.
Tbe answer to tbe third issue will be stricken out, and as thus modified tbe judgment is affirmed.
Modified and affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
201 N.C. 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/somers-v-universal-credit-co-nc-1931.