Court Opinion

ID: 9585032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:55:22.811299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:46.173290
License: Public Domain

Judge Wells
dissenting.
The grounds stated in the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict was that “the evidence taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff fails to establish a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Our review on appeal is limited to the grounds stated in defendant’s motion. Fabrics, Inc. v. Delivery Service, 39 N.C. App. 443, 250 S.E. 2d 723 (1979).
Plaintiffs evidence clearly established that the defendant had assumed the contractual obligations to him originated by the agreement between plaintiff and Norfolk Southern Railroad Company, and that the defendant continued to recognize such obligations to plaintiff for 37 years. The clear inference, the only *559reasonable inference, to be drawn by such conduct on defendant’s part is that it adopted and ratified the contract between plaintiff and Railroad Company.
Although the majority opinion ultimately concludes that plaintiffs claim is barred by the Statute of Frauds, I do not believe that question to be before us, since plaintiff succeeded in establishing defendant’s direct obligation to him.
Plaintiffs evidence being sufficient to withstand defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, it follows that entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict was improper. Norwood v. Sherwin Williams, 303 N.C. 462, 279 S.E. 2d 559 (1981).
I vote to reverse and remand for entry of judgment on the verdict.