Case Name: MARGARET LOUISE GAULDIN, Administratrix of the Estate of CLIFTON WAYNE GAULDIN, Deceased v. STOKES LUMBER COMPANY (Incorporated)
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1960-12-14
Citations: 253 N.C. 579
Docket Number: 
Parties: MARGARET LOUISE GAULDIN, Administratrix of the Estate of CLIFTON WAYNE GAULDIN, Deceased v. STOKES LUMBER COMPANY (Incorporated).
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 253
Pages: 579–579

Head Matter:
MARGARET LOUISE GAULDIN, Administratrix of the Estate of CLIFTON WAYNE GAULDIN, Deceased v. STOKES LUMBER COMPANY (Incorporated).
(Filed 14 December, 1960.)
Appeal by plaintiff from Gwyn, J., at June 11, 1960 Civil Term, Guilford Superior Court (Greensboro Division).
Civil action to recover for alleged wrongful death arising out of a collision between intestate of plaintiff, a child six years of age, and a truck belonging to Stokes Lumber Company.
Two issues were raised by the pleadings, — the first, as to whether plaintiff’s intestate, Clifton Wayne Gauldin, was killed by the negligence of- the defendant as alleged in the complaint; and the second, as to amount of damages resulting therefrom. And on trial in the Superior Court the case was submitted to the jury upon the evidence offered by the respective parties under the charge of the court. The jury answered the first issue in the negative, — thereby eliminating the necessity of answering the second. From judgment entered in accordance therewith in favor of defendant, plaintiff excepts thereto and appeals to Supreme Court, and assigns error.
Folger & Ellington, Jordan, Wright, Henson <fc Nichols for plaintiff, appellant.
Smith, Moore, Smith, Schell & Hunter, Poteat & Franks for defendant appellee.

Opinion:
PeR CüRiam.
The question involved on this appeal as- stated by plaintiff appellant is this: "Did the trial judge adequately declare, explain and apply the law arising on the evidence given in the case in compliance with the requirment of G.S. 1-180?"
Careful perusal of the charge of the court, read contextually and in the light of the evidence before the jury, discloses that the case was adequately and understandably presented. And the verdict is in keep-