Court Opinion

ID: 6698316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 22:01:17.006656+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:01:19.241615
License: Public Domain

Pee Cueiam.
The applicable law has been fully discussed by this Court in a number of recent cases. Perry v. Bottling Co., 196 N. C., 175, 145 S. E., 14; Enloe v. Bottling Co., 208 N. C., 305, 180 S. E., 582; Blackwell v. Bottling Co., 208 N. C., 751, 182 S. E., 469; Collins v. Bottling Co., 209 N. C., 821, 184 S. E., 834; Blackwell v. Bottling Co., 211 N. C., 729, 191 S. E., 887; Tickle v. Hobgood, 216 N. C., 221; Evans v. Bottling Co., 216 N. C., 716. Repetition would serve no good purpose. The evidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury and in the exceptive assignments of error we fail to find cause for disturbing the verdict.
No error.