Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1949

Pruitt v. Ray

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Decided April 20, 1949 · PER CURIAM.

52 S.E.2d 876; 230 N.C. 322; 1949 N.C. LEXIS 610 (South Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Piazza v. Kirkbride (N.C. 2019)
Harrell v. Sagebrush of North Carolina, LLC (N.C. Ct. App. 2008)
Decker v. HOMES, INC./CONSTRUCTION MGMT. (N.C. Ct. App. 2007)
Decker v. Homes, Inc./Construction Management & Financial Group (N.C. Ct. App. 2007)
Matter of Will of Maynard (N.C. Ct. App. 1983)
State v. Britt (N.C. 1974)
In re the Will of Herring (N.C. Ct. App. 1973)
GLEN FOREST CORPORATION v. Bensch (N.C. Ct. App. 1970)
State Highway Commission v. Yarborough (N.C. Ct. App. 1969)
International Paper Co. v. Multiply Corp. (N.C. Ct. App. 1968)
Gilbert v. Moore (N.C. 1966)
Selph v. Selph (N.C. 1966)
Martin v. Underhill (N.C. 1965)
Williams v. Stumpf (N.C. 1956)
Bumgardner v. Allison (N.C. 1953)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per CuRiam.

The only question involved on this appeal is whether or not- the court below committed error in denying plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial.

The plaintiff’s contentions were submitted to the jury on a proper issue and in a charge which he concedes to be free from error.

There was no question of law or legal inference involved in the motion lodged below. Consequently it was addressed to the sound discretion of *323 tbe trial judge, whose ruling, in the absence of abuse of discretion, is not reviewable on appeal. No abuse of discretion is shown. G.S. 1-207; Ziglar v, Ziglar, 226 N.C. 102, 36 S.E. 2d 657; Anderson v. Holland, 209 N.C. 746, 184 S.E. 480.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.