Spell Ex Rel. Spell v. Town of Roseboro

199 S.E. 265, 214 N.C. 364, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 350
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided November 2, 1938·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

At tbe close of plaintiff’s evidence tbe defendant in tbe court below made a motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit. C. S., 567. Tbe court below granted tbe motion and in tbis we can see no error. Under all tbe evidence we see no duty upon defendant to repair and keep up tbe bridge where tbe injury to plaintiff is alleged to have occurred. It was outside tbe town limits. We think there is no sufficient evidence to be submitted to tbe jury tbat tbe defendant maintained or worked tbe highway in question or bad control or supervision of same. As to tbe liability of municipal corporations having legislative authority outside an incorporated town or city, see Berry v. Durham, 186 N. C., 421; High Point v. Clark, 211 N. C., 607.

Affirmed.

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

Spell Ex Rel. Spell v. Town of Roseboro, 199 S.E. 265, 214 N.C. 364, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 350 (N.C. 1938).

199 S.E. 265 (Spell Ex Rel. Spell v. Town of Roseboro) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Whitacre v. City of Charlotte
6 S.E.2d 558 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)