Stamey v. Suncrest Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Stamey v. Suncrest Lumber Co.

148 S.E. 436, 197 N.C. 391, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 245

Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided June 12, 1929·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant, at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence and at the close of all of the evidence, moved for judgment as in case of nonsuit. C. S., 567. The court below refused both motions and in this we see no error. We think the evidence sufficient to be submitted to the wry.

[393]*393In the present action, contributory negligence is no bar to recovery, but mitigates, or diminishes, damages. See C. S., 3465, 3466, 3467, 3468, 3470; Stewart v. Lumber Co., 193 N. C., 138.

The court below gave the contentions fairly to both sides. The law applicable to the facts was carefully and clearly stated. We find

No error.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant, at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence and at the close of all of the evidence, moved for judgment as in case of nonsuit. C. S., 567. The court below refused both motions and in this we see no error. We think the evidence sufficient to be submitted to the wry.

[393]*393In the present action, contributory negligence is no bar to recovery, but mitigates, or diminishes, damages. See C. S., 3465, 3466, 3467, 3468, 3470; Stewart v. Lumber Co., 193 N. C., 138.

The court below gave the contentions fairly to both sides. The law applicable to the facts was carefully and clearly stated. We find

No error.

Stamey v. Suncrest Lumber Co., 148 S.E. 436, 197 N.C. 391, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 245 (N.C. 1929).

Pincite

148 S.E. 436 (Stamey v. Suncrest Lumber Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related