{ "id": 8630336, "name": "A. F. MINCEY v. GOODE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Mincey v. Goode Construction Co.", "decision_date": "1926-04-07", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "548", "last_page": "549", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "191 N.C. 548" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "115 N. C., 746", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652969 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/115/0746-01" ] }, { "cite": "116 N. C., 185", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654543 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/116/0185-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 N. C., 577", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659681 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/120/0577-01" ] }, { "cite": "126 N. C., 1055", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8663766 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/126/1055-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 N. C., 10", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656063 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/133/0010-01" ] }, { "cite": "156 N. C., 643", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272506 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/156/0643-01" ] }, { "cite": "176 N. C., 698", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657966 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/176/0698-01" ] }, { "cite": "184 N. C., 490", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271139 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/184/0490-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 237, "char_count": 3289, "ocr_confidence": 0.465, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.275115718886882e-08, "percentile": 0.4787900761781865 }, "sha256": "b2128e345d9d1b47f97a38bf4e2c734c35b346b85978d0ed7746b7cf305f705d", "simhash": "1:a0acf509a6dc8b0a", "word_count": 575 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:36.568148+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "A. F. MINCEY v. GOODE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Adams, J.\nThe appellant did not except to the admission or rejection of evidence or to the instructions given the jury, hut before the judgment was signed he made a motion to set aside the answer to the second issue on the two grounds that it was against the weight of the evidence and that there was no evidence to support it.\nThe first objection, which was addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, was not presented on the argument here; but the appellant insisted on the proposition that if there was no evidence to support the second issue the answer thereto should have been set aside as a matter of law. To this proposition we cannot assent. It is not to be assumed that in the absence of any evidence of contributory negligence the appellant without timely objection permitted the second issue to be submitted to the jury and answered; and for this reason in part it has been held with marked uniformity that an objection that there was no evidence or no sufficient evidence to support a verdict cannot be taken for the first time after the verdict has been returned. Roberts v. Massey, 185 N. C., 164y Mica Co. v. Mining Co., 184 N. C., 490; Wilkerson v. Pass, 176 N. C., 698; Moon v. Milling Co., ibid., 407; S. v. Leak, 156 N. C., 643; Hart v. Cannon, 133 N. C., 10; S. v. Huggins, 126 N. C., 1055; S. v. Harris, 120 N. C., 577; Holden v. Strickland, 116 N. C., 185; S. v. Kizer, 115 N. C., 746. Under the principle adhered to in these cases and in many others which are not cited it is unnecessary to discuss the testimony on which the defendant relied in support of the second issue.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Adams, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "R. 0. Everett for the plaintiff.", "Burgess & Joyner, Fuller, Reade & Fuller and Oscar Leach for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "A. F. MINCEY v. GOODE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.\n(Filed 7 April, 1926.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Evidence\u2014Issues\u2014Objections and Exceptions \u2014 Motion to Set Aside Verdict.\nIn an action to recover damages'for a personal injury alleged to have been negligently inflicted, involving tbe issues of negligence and contributory negligence, tbe answer in tbe affirmative on tbe second' issue will not be set aside on plaintiff\u2019s motion made upon tbe ground of tbe lack of sufficient evidence and after verdict without objection made in apt time to tbe submission of tbe issue.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Devin, J., at January Term, 1926, of Due-ham. No error.\nThis is an action to recover damages for personal injury alleged to have been caused by the defendant\u2019s negligence in failing to provide for the plaintiff a safe place in which to work. The specific allegations are that the plaintiff was working for the defendant and that its superintendent directed him to go upon a scaffold which the defendant had negligently constructed; that the scaffold broke; and that the plaintiff fell to the ground and was injured. The defendant filed an answer denying the material allegations, and at the trial the following verdict was returned:\n1. Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant as alleged in the complaint ? Answer: Yes.\n2. Did the plaintiff by his own negligence contribute to his injury as alleged in the answer? Answer: Yes.\n3. What damage, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover? Answer:\nJudgment was given for the defendant and the plaintiff appealed..\nR. 0. Everett for the plaintiff.\nBurgess & Joyner, Fuller, Reade & Fuller and Oscar Leach for defendant." }, "file_name": "0548-01", "first_page_order": 628, "last_page_order": 629 }