TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wyatt v. City of Raleigh

W. L. Wyatt v. City of Raleigh.

Wyatt v. City of Raleigh, 90 S.E. 213 (N.C. 1916)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 18, 1916
Judges
PER CURIAM.
Citations
90 S.E. 213172 N.C. 8471916 N.C. LEXIS 423
Headnotes
Appeal and Error — Issues—Objections and Exceptions — Harmless Error. Where the action to recover damages for the negligent killing of a mule has heen submitted upon the three issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and amount of damage, a charge upon the second issue, answered “Yes,” if erroneous, is not reversible error as to plaintiff, when the jury have answered the first “No,” to which no exception was taken by him.
Summary
ActioN tried at June Term, 1916, of "Wake, before Connor, J., upon these issues: 1. Was the plaintiff’s mule killed as a result of the negligence of defendant, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: “No.” 2. If so, did plaintiff contribute by bis own negligence to the cause of the death of the said mule? Answer: “Yes.” 3. What sum, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant as damages? Answer: . From the judgment rendered, plaintiff appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Cukiam.

The only assignment of error relating to the evidence is to that of George M. Harden, who testified as to the condition of the streets of Raleigh on the morning that the accident occurred, and it is without merit. The other assignments of error, six in number, all relate to the first issue, referring to the alleged negligence of the defendant.

The said assignments are without merit. The charge is a clear and correct presentation of the well settled principles of law applicable to this case. But if the charge was in some respects erroneous, as contended by the plaintiff, it would not matter, for the jury found the second issue against the plaintiff, and there are no assignments of error as to the charge upon that issue.

No error.

How later courts describe this case

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

1950: 119502026peak 1950 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Call v. Stroud61 S.E.2d 342 (N.C. 1950)

Most recent

  1. Call v. Stroud61 S.E.2d 342 (N.C. 1950)

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