The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-11-24
Supreme Court Decisions.

kOEN- LEVIN, APPELLANT vs.. VI
of BURLINGTON.
municipal corporation is not liable Tor
damages resulting from the acts OF It's
agents in enforcing a public law.
j. S. KNIGHT & CO., APPELLANTS VS..
ASA HATFIELD. (Vrom Moore.)
1t is proper for a judge to vacate an
attachment pending trial OF the action
where it plainly appears from the plead
ings that the plaintiffs action must fail
Defendant is not required to give bond
where it appears upon the face OF the
warrant that the attachment was issued
irregulary.
IN THE MATTER OF THE WILL OF ].
M. WORTH. appeal by caveators) from
Randolph.
The disqualification in Section $50 of
The Code applies only to witness testi-
flying in his own behalf.
Upon the trial of an issue devisavit vel
non, witness, who is legatee in
former will not shown to have been re-
voked, and also a legatee in the contest
ed will. is not disqualified under Section
500 of The Code unless it is shown that
the legacy of witness in the former will
is larger than his legacy in the contested
will.
If a question proposed to witness
suggests with sufficient certainty the
facts intended to be elected, this court
will pass upon the exception to the re-
fusal to admit the question, although it's
object is not specifically set out in the
assignment of error.
The failure of the court below in this
case to charge the jury more specifically
(and in connection with other parts of
the charged in reference to the inequali-
ties of the distribution of testator's prop
erty among his children and grandchil-
dren, as showing undue influence upon
the testator in the execution of the will,
was error.
PEOPLES NATIONAL BANK, APPEL
LIANT VS.. G.. ID. HODGIN. (F'ron For
syth.)
An Act of Assembly will not be con-
strued as retroactive in its effect unless
such intention appears from the Act it
self.
Chapter $40 Public Laws 1901, regulat-
ing settlements of partnership by survv-
ing partner, does not apply to actions
then pending and is not retroactive.
A. S. CLINARD, ADMIR-. VS.. J. G. WHITE
& Co., APPELLANTS. (From Forsyth
The agent of foreign corporation who
superintends all it's work in this State
and has general charge OF it's employees is
held to be it's managing agent" within
the meaning of Section PIT subsection 1
of The Code and service of summons
upon such agent is valid where the plain
tiff resides in this State and the cause of
action arose here.
An appeal does not lie from refusal to
dismiss an action.
C. A., MYERS VS.. CONCORD LUMBER
CO., APPELLANT. (From Cabarrus.)
1t is the employers duty to be reason
ably careful to provide for the employe
sound and safe appliances and machinery
a safe place in which to work and safe
way to go to and from his place of work.
In an action by employe to recover for
injuries alleged to have been caused by
negligent arrangement of machinery, evil
dence that a change in the arrangement
had been made since the injury, is mad
MISSILE for the purpose of showing neg
ligence of the defendant in the former ar
rangement.
A. ]. PARLIER VS.. SOUTHERN RAIL
WAY CO.. APPELLANT. (From Ca
barrus.)
IT defendant introduces evidence after
refusal of his motion to consult under
Act of 1897 he is held to have waived any
right he had under his motion; but after
introducing evidence he may renew his
motion and the motion then stands upon
a consideration of the entire evidence
OF plaintiff and defendant. Means vs..
Railroad Co., 12e N. c. 42i; oh. 594 Acts
1901.
Where, in an action against a railroad
company for damages sustained by al
legged negligence of defendant while plain
tiff was getting off the train, it appeared
from plaintiffs evidence that while plain
tiff was alighting from the train after it
had stopped at a station, the train jerked
with violent motion causing plaintiffs
fall and injury, the trial judge was war
ranted in refusing the motion to non-suit
under the statute.