Case Name: L. B. BUTNER v. BROWN BROTHERS
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1921-12-21
Citations: 182 N.C. 692
Docket Number: 
Parties: L. B. BUTNER v. BROWN BROTHERS.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 182
Pages: 692–701

Head Matter:
L. B. BUTNER v. BROWN BROTHERS.
(Filed 21 December, 1921.)
Negligence — Evidence — Nonsuit—New Action — Second Appeal — Appeal and Error.
It appearing in this case, involving tbe question of defendant’s negligence, that a motion of nonsuit on tbe evidence bas been affirmed on a former appeal (180 N. 0., 612), and another action has been brought between tbe same parties for tbe same cause, and again nonsuited upon substantially tbe same evidence, tbe Superior Court having followed tbe former decisions of tbe Supreme Court in tbe former action, tbe judgment is affirmed on tbe appeal in tbe subsequent action, for tbe reasons stated in tbe former decision.
Clabk, C. J., dissents.
Appeal by plaintiff from Show, J., at tbe August Term, 1921, of YaNCEY.
Civil action to recover damages for physical injuries suffered by reason of tbe alleged negligence of defendant company, its agents and employees, in operating a lumber mill. At close of plaintiff’s evidence, on motion, there was judgment of nonsuit, and plaintiff excepted and appealed.
Charles Hutchins and A. Hall Johnson for plaintiff.
Watson, Hudgins, Watson & Fouts for defendant.

Opinion:
Hoke, J.
This cause was before tbe Court in a former appeal, and it was there held that tbe defendants motion for nonsuit should have been sustained. This opinion having been certified down, judgment of non-suit was formally entered pursuant to tbe opinion. Plaintiff then instituted present suit to recover for the same injury and at close of plaintiff's evidence, on motion, a judgment of nonsuit was again entered and plaintiff excepted and appealed.
On perusal of the present record and a careful comparison with the facts set forth in the former appeal, we are of the opinion that the two actions are made to rest on substantially similar facts, the questions presented are substantially the same, and for the reasons set forth in the former opinion we must hold that the judgment of nonsuit has been properly entered. There, as in this ease, the plaintiff at the time of his injury was in the mill getting some edgings, contrary to the rules of the company, contrary to the explicit instructions of his own father, and acting on the invitation and by the directions of one Joe Eisehell, a subordinate employee, having no authority, express or implied, to bind or charge the company in this matter by his words or by his conduct. A statement of the pertinent facts and the authorities upon which the ruling is based will sufficiently appear by reference to the former case, reported in 180 N. C., 612. The judgment of the court is
Affirmed.