Rose v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Rose v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, 210 N.C. 834 (N.C. 1936)

Rose v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The judgment of nonsuit must be affirmed on authority of Goldstein v. R. R., 203 N. C., 166, 165 S. E., 337, and Weston v. R. R., 194 N. C., 210, 139 S. E., 237. These cases are controlling upon the facts presently appearing of record.

The case of Dickey v. R. R., 196 N. C., 726, 147 S. E., 15, cited and relied upon by plaintiffs, is distinguishable in that no town ordinance was being violated by the defendant at the time of the accident as was the situation in Biekey s case, supra.

The pertinent authorities are assembled in Sessoms v. R. R., 208 N. C., 844, 182 S. E., 112.

Affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
S. B. ROSE v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY and W. A. McDANIEL v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY
Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published