Case ID: nc_202/html/0859-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

W. H. WRIGHT v. MUTUAL COTTON MILLS COMPANY.
    (Filed 15 June, 1932.)
    Civil action, before Schenclc, J. ', at December Term, 1931, of Gaston.
    The plaintiff alleged that defendant is the owner and operator of a cotton mill, and as an incident to said business, owns certain tenement houses for the use of its employees. That the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant and rented one of said houses for the use of himself and family, paying as rental the sum of sixty cents per week. It was further alleged that on or about the first day of January, 1930, the house burned, destroying the household furniture and other personal effects of plaintiff.
    
      Tbe evidence tended to show that the defendants furnished light for the houses owned by it, including that rented by the plaintiff. On the night before the fire one of the lights in the house would not burn. On the next day the plaintiff reported the matter to the agent of defendant, who promised to make the necessary repairs. This was about twelve o’clock in the day. The house burned about four o’clock -in the afternoon of’ that day. A witness said: “The fire seemed to be burning through the roof in a streak two feet wide where the electric wire went in.” The light that was out of repair was in the front room of the house.
    At the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence there was judgment of non-suit and he appealed.
    
      J. L. Hamme for plaintiff.
    
    
      Geo. B. Mason, for defendant.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment of nonsuit is supported by Tucker v. Yarn Mill Co., 194 N. C., 756, 140 S. E., 744; Salter v. Gordon, 200 N. C., 381, 157 S. E., 11; Williams v. Osage Mfg. Co., ante, 859.

Affirmed.