Whitehead v. City of Charlotte

20 S.E.2d 57, 221 N.C. 539, 1942 N.C. LEXIS 507
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided May 6, 1942·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff sued for the recovery of damages for an injury alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of defendant in permitting a defect in the street to remain unrepaired and in a dangerous condition. The plaintiff recovered a verdict, and -from the ensuing judgment the defendant appealed. Upon consideration of the appeal the Court was evenly divided — three to three — Justice Schenck not sitting. Therefore, the judgment of the court below stands affirmed, and this decision does not become a precedent. Smith v. Bottling Co., ante, 202, 19 S. E. (2d), 250; Adams v. Murphrey, ante, 165, 19 S. E. (2d), 250; Seay v. Ins. Co., 213 N. C., 660, 197 S. E., 151.

Affirmed.

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

Whitehead v. City of Charlotte, 20 S.E.2d 57, 221 N.C. 539, 1942 N.C. LEXIS 507 (N.C. 1942).

20 S.E.2d 57 (Whitehead v. City of Charlotte) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Seay v. American Savings Life Insurance
197 S.E. 151 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Adams v. . Murphrey
19 S.E.2d 250 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)