Upchurch v. Buckner

85 S.E.2d 341, 241 N.C. 411, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 377
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided January 14, 1955·Published

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

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

85 S.E.2d 341 (Upchurch v. Buckner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)