Munick v. City of Durham
Decision Date | 06 April 1921 |
Docket Number | 332. |
Citation | 106 S.E. 665,181 N.C. 188 |
Parties | MUNICK v. CITY OF DURHAM ET AL. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Durham County; Calrut, Judge.
Action by H. Munick against the City of Durham and the Board of Water Commissioners. Judgment of nonsuit, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
It was the duty of the board of water commissioners of a city, not only to refrain from assaulting or injuring one who has been invited upon its premises, but also to protect him from any violence which it could reasonably have foreseen if offered by others.
The waterworks in the city of Durham are owned by the municipality and are operated by it under the supervision of the defendant board of water commissioners. Among their employees was one Harvey Bolton, who had general charge and supervision of said water system, and among whose duties it was, assisted by others under his supervision, to keep the books continuing the accounts against all customers purchasing water, to render statements to said consumers for the water used by them and collect all sums due, and to give receipts upon payment of said bills. This is an action by the plaintiff against the city for damages for assault and battery upon him by said Bolton.
The plaintiff, H. Munick, testified:
On cross-examination, he said:
J. O. Lunsford testified that he had known the plaintiff for 12 or 15 years; had sold him flour for several years, and knew his general character and it was good; that on the day of this occurrence the plaintiff told him about having this trouble in the water company's office.
A. J. Draughan also testified that he had known the plaintiff 10 or 12 years; that he had sold him goods, and knows his general character and that it was good.
At the close of the above testimony the defendant offered no evidence, but moved for judgment of nonsuit, which was granted, and the plaintiff appealed.
R. O. Everett and William G. Bramham, both of Durham, for appellant.
S. C. Chambers, of Durham, for appellees.
The testimony for the plaintiff presents one of the most singular occurrences that has come to this court. The defendant offered no evidence, and the nonsuit was granted on the uncontradicted testimony for the plaintiff as above set out. It is therefore taken as true, with all the inferences from it in the most favorable light to the plaintiff. But, indeed, there seems to be but one that could be drawn from it. The plaintiff, an old and feeble man, went to the water company on receiving a notice sent by it to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dickerson v. Atlantic Refining Co.
... ... Co., 190 N.C. 406, 130 S.E. 32; Butler v. Mfg ... Co., 182 N.C. 547, 109 S.E. 559; Munick v ... Durham, 181 N.C. 188, 106 S.E. 665, 24 A. L. R. 538; ... Clark v. Bland, 181 N.C. 110, ... ...
-
A.G. v. Fattaleh
...(collection agent for insurance company threatened plaintiff with pistol when she was unable to pay premium); Munick v. Durham , 181 N.C. 188, 106 S.E. 665, 667 (1921) (city employee assaulted plaintiff when he paid portion of his water bill in pennies); Carawan v. Tate , 53 N.C.App. 161, 2......
-
Small v. Morrison
...land, though a woman, to be empress over hundreds of millions of people in India; and this court, in a recent decision, in Munick v. Durham, 181 N.C. 188, 106 S.E. 665, declared their equality before the law in every At common law a woman could not sue her husband because on marriage her pr......
-
Kelly v. Newark Shoe Stores Co.
... ... charging plaintiff with embezzlement, and from which ... imprisonment in the city ... [130 S.E. 33] ... prison ensued; (d) that the said defendants did maliciously ... Daniel v. Railroad, 136 N.C. 517, 48 S.E. 816, 67 L ... R. A. 455, 1 Ann. Cas. 718; Munick v. Durham, 181 ... N.C. 188, 106 S.E. 665, 24 ... [130 S.E. 35.] ... A. L. R. 538; Clark v ... ...