Talton v. Southern Railway Co.

Per Curiam. The defendant’s chief assignment of error, or the one most strongly urged on the argument and in its brief, is based on the exception addressed to the refusal of the court to grant the motion for judgment as of nonsuit, made on the ground that the plaintiff’s own evidence clearly establishes a case of contributory negligence sufficient to bar his right of recovery. Wright v. R. R., 155 N. C., 329; Horne v. R. R., 170 N. C., 660; Coleman v. R. R., 153 N. C., 322; Holton v. R. R., 188 N. C., 277. *824 We are convinced from a careful perusal of tbe record tbat tbe evidence was properly submitted to tbe jury. No benefit would be derived from detailing plaintiff’s testimony, as tbe only question presented by tbis exception is wbetber or not it is sufficient to carry tbe case to tbe jury, and we think it is. Farris v. R. R., 151 N. C., 483. No error.