TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Denny v. Snow

E. Y. Denny and Willie Willard v. O. E. Snow, Guardian of Lee Hill, and Lee Hill and O. E. Snow, Administrator of the Estate of Lee Hill.

Denny v. Snow, 155 S.E. 874 (N.C. 1930)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 26, 1930
Judges
PER CURIAM.
Citations
155 S.E. 874199 N.C. 7731930 N.C. LEXIS 248

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

At tbe close of plaintiff’s evidence and at tbe close of all tbe evidence, tbe defendant made motions in tbe court below for judgment as in case of nonsuit. O. S., 567. We think the motions should have been granted.

From a careful review of tbe evidence, we do not think it is of sufficient probative force to have been submitted to tbe jury. It raised a suspicion, a conjecture, a guess, a surmise, a speculation, but there must be more than this, more than a scintilla of evidence, to take a case to tbe jury, and we do not find it on this record.

“A verdict or finding must rest upon facts proved, or at least upon facts of which there is substantial evidence, and cannot rest upon mere surmise, speculation, conjecture, or suspicion. There must be legal evidence of every material fact necessary to support the verdict or finding, and such verdict or finding must be grounded on a reasonable certainty as to probabilities arising from a fair consideration of the evidence, and not a mere guess, or on possibilities.” 23 C. J., pp. 51-52.

S. v. Johnson, ante, 429.

We see no reason to set forth the evidence. It was fully discussed and the case ably argued on the hearing. We have gone into the record fully and thoroughly, mindful of the fact that a jury has passed on the evidence, but with the responsibility resting on us we cannot say the evidence, which was wholly circumstantial, was sufficient for the court below to have submitted it to the jury. The judgment below is Reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 15 cases

View all citing references →
1931: 21933: 11934: 11936: 11938: 11940: 21941: 11942: 11947: 11952: 11956: 11959: 12012: 119312026peak 1931 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Jenrette Transport Co. v. Atlantic Fire Insurance73 S.E.2d 481 (N.C. 1952)
  2. Mills v. Moore12 S.E.2d 661 (N.C. 1941)
  3. Mitchell v. Melts18 S.E.2d 406 (N.C. 1942)
  4. Fleming v. Twiggs94 S.E.2d 821 (N.C. 1956)
  5. Harris v. Schoonmaker58 P.2d 415 (Wyo. 1936)
  6. Cummings v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad6 S.E.2d 837 (N.C. 1940)

Most recent

  1. STARK ex rel. JACOBSEN v. Ford Motor Co.723 S.E.2d 753 (N.C. 2012)
  2. Wall v. Trogdon107 S.E.2d 757 (N.C. 1959)
  3. Fleming v. Twiggs94 S.E.2d 821 (N.C. 1956)
  4. Jenrette Transport Co. v. Atlantic Fire Insurance73 S.E.2d 481 (N.C. 1952)
  5. Foreman-Blades Lumber Co. v. City of Elizabeth City41 S.E.2d 761 (N.C. 1947)
  6. Mitchell v. Melts18 S.E.2d 406 (N.C. 1942)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list