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

DecidedJune 12, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 148 S.E. 436 (Stamey v. Suncrest Lumber 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.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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