Sutton v. Lyons
| Decision Date | 13 September 1911 |
| Citation | 156 N.C. 3,72 S.E. 4 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | SUTTON v. LYONS et al. |
On the evidence in an action for personal injuries the question as to whether defendant owned and operated the mill in which plaintiff was injured while at work held for the jury.
[Ed. Note.— For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. § 284.*]
Evidence of the possession of personal property is evidence of title, in the absence of other proof.
[Ed. Note.— For other cases, see Property, Dec. Dig. § 9;* Evidence, Cent. Dig. § 78.]
Where plaintiff has suffered an injury from the negligent management of a vehicle such as a boat, car, or carriage, it is sufficient prima facie evidence that the negligence was imputable to.the defendant, and showed that he was the owner of the thing, without proving affirmatively that the person in charge was the defendant's servant.
[Ed. Note.— For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 1270-1272; Dec. Dig. § 330.*]
In an action for injuries, the plaintiff, for the purpose of showing that the person who managed a mill situated on defendant's laud was defendant's agent, offered defendant's tax list for a certain year signed by such manager as "agent." Held, that the tax list amounted to no more than a declaration, and that, as an agency must be proved aliunde, the declarations of the alleged agent both as to the establishment of the agency and the nature and extent of his authority were inadmissible.
[Ed. Note.— For other cases, see Principal and Agent, Cent. Dig. § 40; Dec. Dig. § 22.*]
Agency ma, y be shown by the testimony of the agent under oath.
[Ed. Note.— For other cases, see Principal and Agent, Cent. Dig. § 39; Dec. Dig. § 21.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, Currituck County; Justice, Judge.
Action by H. V. Sutton against Hannah Lyons and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. New trial.
The plaintiff alleges that he was injured by the negligence of the defendant on the 7th of August, 1900, while working at her mill, and that the negligence consisted in a defect in the machinery. The defendant denies negligence, and also denies that she was the owner of the mill, or that she operated it. The defendant admits in her answer that the mill is located on her land, and that it was engaged in sawing some of the timber on the land, but that it has not been in operation for 12 months. The defendant further alleges that the plaintiff was a trespasser in going upon said premises, and that he was there contrary to the express orders and directions of the defendant. It was in evidence that W. J. Tate managed the mill, and, for the purpose of showing that he was agent of the defendant Lyon, the plaintiff offered in evidence the tax list of the plaintiff for the year 1906, signed "W. J. Tate, agent, " which was excluded, and the plaintiff excepted. There was some evidence of negligence, and that this was the cause of the plaintiff's injury, but his honor, being of opinion that there was no evidence that the defendant Lyon was the owner of the mill and operated it, entered a judgment of nonsuit, on motion of the defendant, and the plaintiff excepted and appealed.
W. M. Bond and Ward & Grimes, for appellant.
J. C. B. Ehringhaus and E. F. Aydlett, for appellees.
ALLEN, J. (after stating the facts as above). [1] In our opinion there was evidence fit to be submitted to the jury. It is not conclusive in its nature, and may be weakened or strengthened, when all the facts are developed. The size of the mill, and whether easily moved from one place to another, would be material circumstances. The admission that she is the owner of the land on which the mill is located is some evidence that she is the owner of the mill.
If affixed to the soil, it would be a part of the land, nothing else appearing, and, if not and it "was personalty, the fact that it is on her land is evidence of possession, and evidence of the possession of personalty is evidence of title, in the absence of otherproof. There is also evidence that the defendant "was exercising dominion over the property, as she says she had given direction for the plaintiff to stay off the premises. The circumstance that the mill "is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parrish v. Boysell Mfg. Co.
... ... Jones v ... Light Co., 206 N.C. 862, 175 S.E. 167; Allen v. R. & Lumber Co., 171 N.C. 339, 88 S.E. 492; Sutton v ... Lyons, 156 N.C. 3, 72 S.E. 4; State v ... Yellowday, 152 N.C. 793, 67 S.E. 480; Hill v ... Bean, 150 N.C. 436, 64 S.E. 212; New Home ... ...
-
Cole v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
...Willis v. Atlantic R. R. Co., 120 N.C. 508, 26 S.E. 784. See, also, Cooper v. Southern Ry. Co., 165 N.C. 578, 81 S.E. 761; Sutton v. Lyons, 156 N.C. 3, 72 S.E. 4, and Snipes v. Norfolk R. R. Co., 144 N.C. 18, S.E. 477. At any rate, there is evidence to support this view, which must be taken......
- Bullock v. Planters' Cotton Seed Oil Co.
-
Embler v. Gloucester Lumber Co.
...burden was upon the defendant to show that fact. 26 Cyc. p. 1573--3; Midgette v. Manufacturing Co., 150 N.C. 333, 64 S.E. 5; Sutton v. Lyon, 156 N.C. 3, 72 S.E. 4; Mitchell v. Whitlock, 121 N.C. 166, 28 S.E. Cook v. Guirkin, 119 N.C. 13, 25 S.E. 715. This court has held that, in the trial o......