Case ID: nc_186/html/0772-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Cueiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

W. S. PEARCE v. DURHAM AND SOUTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY and NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY.
    (Filed 31 October, 1923.)
    Appeal by defendant, Durham and South Carolina Bailroad Company, from Cramner, J., at March Term, 1923, of Waice.
    Civil action tried upon tbe following issues:
    “1. Was tbe plaintiff injured by tbe negligence of tbe Durham and South Carolina Bailroad Company, as alleged in tbe complaint? Answer: ‘Yes.’
    “2. What amount of damages, if any, is tbe plaintiff entitled to recover? Answer: ‘$2,750.’”
    Judgment on tbe verdict in favor of plaintiff. Defendant appealed, assigning errors.
    
      Douglass & Douglass and Armistead J ones & Son for plaintiff.
    
    
      FuMer & Fuller for defendant.
    
   Pee Cueiam.

Tbe trial of this cause reduced itself to a controversy over issues of fact, which tbe jury alone could determine. A careful perusal of tbe record convinces us that tbe case bas been tried substantially in accordance, with tbe law bearing on tbe subject, and we bave discovered no ruling or action on tbe part of tbe trial-court which would seem to require another bearing. Tbe chief exceptions are those directed to alleged errors in tbe charge and to tbe court’s refusal to grant tbe defendant’s motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit. There is nothing on tbe record which entitles tbe defendant to a new trial or to a dismissal. .

No error.