Case Name: MARGIE BALDWIN, Administratrix of DANIEL BALDWIN, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1931-10-28
Citations: 201 N.C. 834
Docket Number: 
Parties: MARGIE BALDWIN, Administratrix of DANIEL BALDWIN, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 201
Pages: 834–835

Head Matter:
MARGIE BALDWIN, Administratrix of DANIEL BALDWIN, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY.
(Filed 28 October, 1931.)
Appeal by plaintiff from Daniels, J., and a jury, at May Term, 1931, of CumberlaND.
No error.
This is an action for actionable negligence, brought by plaintiff against defendant. The defendant denied negligence and set up the plea of contributory negligence. Margie Baldwin was duly appointed ad-ministratrix of Daniel Baldwin. Her intestate was killed by defendant Railroad Company in a collision about ten o’clock at night in Fayette-ville, N. 0., 2 May, 1930. Plaintiff’s intestate was killed by defendant’s freight train moving northwardly on the east main line along the middle of Winslow Street at the intersection with Franklin.
The issues submitted to the' jury were as follows:
“1. Was the plaintiff’s intestate killed by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: No.
2. Did.the plaintiff’s intestate by his own negligence contribute to his death, as alleged in the answer ? Answer: .
3. What damages, if any, is tbe plaintiff’s intestate entitled to recover of tbe defendant ? Answer: .•.”
Tbe jury answered tbe first issue “No.” Tbe court below rendered judgment on tbe verdict for defendant. Tbe plaintiff made numerous exceptions and assignments of error and appealed to tbe Supreme Court.
Bye & Ciarle for plaintiff.
Rose & Lyon for defendant.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Ve bave read tbe record and briefs of tbe litigants witb care. We bave beard tbe able attorneys argue tbe case before us. We bave gone over tbe exceptions and assignments of error made by plaintiff and read tbe charge of tbe court below. We tbink tbe charge correct, and we see no new or novel proposition of law presented on tbe record. Tbe controversy between the litigants was mainly questions of fact. Tbe jury has decided witb tbe defendant and we see no legal reason to disturb tbe judgment.
No error.