Oberly & Newell Lithograph Corp. v. Clark
| Decision Date | 09 November 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 173.,173. |
| Citation | 214 N.C. 400,199 S.E. 398 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | OBERLY & NEWELL LITHOGRAPH CORPORATION. v. CLARK. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Rutherford County; Hubert E. Olive, Special Judge.
Action by the Oberly & Newell Lithograph Corporation against Watson Clark to recover for goods sold to and manufactured for the Clark Knitting Mills. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
New trial awarded.
Civil action to recover for goods sold to and manufactured for "Clark Knitting Mills".
Under date of July 21, 1936, Frank Roberson, acting for and on behalf of Clark Knitting Mills, gave the plaintiff an order for certain specifically made "box tops", "bands", "labels" and "riders", a part of which was shipped, and the remainder, valued at $460, while manufactured as per instructions, has never been ordered out, but has been tendered for delivery.
There is evidence that the defendant owned the Clark Knitting Mills and was operating the mill in 1936.
The evidence on behalf of the defendant is to the effect that George and Frank Roberson operated the mill; that the defendant loaned them money, and that he, the defendant, neither owned the business nor operated it.
From a directed verdict for plaintiff and judgment thereon, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.
Mack P. Spears and T. J. Edwards, both of Rutherfordton, for appellant.
Paul Boucher, of Rutherfordton, for appellee.
The evidence is not all one way. It is conflicting on the issue of defendant's liability. It was error, therefore, for the court to instruct the jury peremptorily in favor of the plaintiff. Brooks v. Washington Nat. Ins. Co., 211 N.C. 274, 189 S.E. 787. The rule is, that where the evidence is conflicting, or if diverse inferences may reasonably be drawn therefrom, some favorable to the plaintiff and others favorable to the defendant, the cause should be submitted to the jury for final determination. In re West, 212 N.C. 189, 193 S.E. 134; Hobbs v. Mann, 199 N.C. 532, 155 S.E. 163.
For the error, as indicated, a new trial must be awarded. It is so ordered.
New trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gorham v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co.
... ... 7 (2d Ed.), 6022; ... Moore v. Accident Assur. Corp., 173 N.C. 532, 92 ... S.E. 362; Rand v. Ins. Co., 206 ... from the court. Lithograph Corp. v. Clark, 214 N.C ... 400, 199 S.E. 398; Hobbs v ... ...
-
Graham v. North Carolina Butane Gas Co.
...358; Phillips v. Nessmith, 226 N.C. 173, 37 S.E.2d 178; Newbern v. Leary, 215 N.C. 134, 1 S.E.2d 384; Oberly & Newell Lithograph Corporation v. Clark, 214 N.C. 400, 199 S.E. 398. The plaintiffs seek to hold the defendant liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for injury to their p......
-
Rushing v. Polk, 251
...A peremptory instruction for plaintiff is error when the evidence is conflicting upon the issue. Oberly & Newell Lithograph Corporation v. Clark, 214 N.C. 400, 199 S.E. 398. There is no way for us to determine upon what theory the jury answered the agency issue in favor of plaintiff. Male d......
-
Wooten v. Smith
... ... evidence. Oberly & Newell Lithograph Corp. v. Clark, ... 214 N.C. 400, 199 ... ...