Terry v. . Montgomery Ward Co.

186 S.E. 242, 210 N.C. 351, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 101
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided June 15, 1936·Published

Opinion

*352 Per Curiam.

Conceding without deciding that there was evidence at the trial of these actions tending to show that at the time the plaintiffs were injured, the defendant Tom Terry was an employee of his co-defendant, Montgomery Ward Company, and was not an independent contractor as contended by the defendants, we are of opinion that there was no evidence tending to show that the defendant Tom Terry was at the time of the collision engaged in the performance of any duty incident to his employment.

For this reason, there is no error in the judgment dismissing the action as to the defendant Montgomery Ward Company at the close of the evidence. See Wilkie v. Stancil, 196 N. C., 794, 147 S. E., 296; Peters v. Tea Company, 194 N. C., 172, 138 S. E., 595; Grier v. Grier, 192 N. C., 760, 135 S. E., 852.

The judgment is

Affirmed.

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

Terry v. . Montgomery Ward Co., 186 S.E. 242, 210 N.C. 351, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 101 (N.C. 1936).

186 S.E. 242 (Terry v. . Montgomery Ward Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Grier v. . Grier
135 S.E. 852 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1926)
Wilkie v. . Stancil
147 S.E. 296 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1929)
Peters v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
138 S.E. 595 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1927)