Banks v. Maxwell, 131.
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | BROGDEN, Justice |
| Citation | Banks v. Maxwell, 205 N.C. 233, 171 S.E. 70 (N.C. 1933) |
| Decision Date | 11 October 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 131.,131. |
| Parties | BANKS . v. MAXWELL. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Henderson County; P. A. McElroy, Judge.
Action by Joseph Arthur Banks against James A. Maxwell. Judgment of nonsuit, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Plaintiff instituted this action to recover damages for serious injuries sustained by being gored by a bull owned by the defendant. The plaintiff was a boy 18 years of age, and had been raised on a farm, and on July 10, 1931, was working on the farm of defendant
The narrative of the injury is substantially as follows:
Another witness for plaintiff said: ...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
6 cases
-
Alexander v. Crotchett
...377; McIntire v. Prater, 189 Ark. 596, 74 S.W.2d 639; Creeger v. Springfield Rendering Co., 220 N.E. 352; Banks v. Maxwell, 171 S.W. 70, 205 N.C. 233. (2) The Kansas Stock Yards Company was not required to discover by inquiry or otherwise that the bull was vicious nor was it required to exe......
-
Alexander v. Crochett
...McIntire v. Prater, 189 Ark. 596, 74 S.W. (2d) 639; Creeger v. Springfield Rendering Co., 220 N.E. 352; Banks v. Maxwell, 171 S.W. 70, 205 N.C. 233. (2) The Kansas City Stock Yards Company was not required to discover by inquiry or otherwise that the bull was vicious nor was it required to ......
-
Plumidies v. Smith
...should have known of the animal's vicious propensity, character and habits. Hill v. Moseley, 220 N.C. 485, 17 S.E.2d 676; Banks v. Maxwell, 205 N.C. 233, 171 S.E. 70; Rector v. Southern Coal Co, 192 N.C. 804, 136 S.E. 113; State v. Smith, 156 N.C. 628, 72 S.E. 321, 36 L.R.A, N.S, 910; Hally......
-
First Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank of Columbia v. Page
... ... the principle announced in Mercer v. Bullock, 191 ... N.C. 216, 131 S.E. 580, that the purchaser is entitled to all ... rents falling due after the foreclosure, ... ...
Get Started for Free