Court Opinion

ID: 6698701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 22:02:46.020456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:01:20.286625
License: Public Domain

Pee CtjeiaM.
The case was tried on the principles announced in Fuller v. R. R., 214 N. C., 648, 200 S. E., 403; Edgerton v. R. R., 203 N. C., 281, 165 S. E., 689; Farming Co. v. R. R., 189 N. C., 63, 126 S. E., 167; and Hinkle v. R. R., 126 N. C., 932, 36 S. E., 348, which was as favorable to the plaintiff as he could expect. The defendant was a contract carrier, but not a common carrier. There was no error in the placing of the burden of proof. Speas v. Bank, 188 N. C., 524, 125 S. E., 398; Hosiery Co. v. Express Co., 184 N. C., 478, 114 S. E., 823.
The verdict and judgment will be upheld.
No error.