Upchurch v. Buckner

85 S.E.2d 341, 241 N.C. 411, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 377
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 14, 1955
StatusPublished

This text of 85 S.E.2d 341 (Upchurch v. Buckner) 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
Upchurch v. Buckner, 85 S.E.2d 341, 241 N.C. 411, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 377 (N.C. 1955).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs have two assignments of error: One, to tbe court’s refusal to set tbe verdict aside as being against tbe greater weight of tbe evidence, and Two, to tbe signing of tbe judgment.

Tbe evidence was conflicting. Tbe motion by tbe plaintiffs to set aside tbe verdict as being against tbe greater weight of tbe evidence was one addressed to tbe sound discretion of tbe court, and no abuse of discretion being shown its refusal to grant tbe motion is not reviewable. Billings v. Observer, 150 N.C. 540, 64 S.E. 435; Hoke v. Whisnant, 174 N.C. 658, 94 S.E. 446; Anderson v. Holland, 209 N.C. 746, 184 S.E. 511; Coach Co. v. Motor Lines, 229 N.C. 650, 50 S.E. 2d 909; Poniros v. Teer Co., 236 N.C. 145, 72 S.E. 2d 9.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Related

Billings v. Charlotte Observer
64 S.E. 435 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1909)
Anderson v. . Holland
184 S.E. 511 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
Carolina Coach Co. v. Central Motor Lines, Inc.
50 S.E.2d 909 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
Hoke v. . Whisnant
94 S.E. 446 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)
Poniros v. Nello L. Teer Co.
72 S.E.2d 9 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 S.E.2d 341, 241 N.C. 411, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/upchurch-v-buckner-nc-1955.