From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ferguson v. Spinning Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina
May 1, 1934
174 S.E. 300 (N.C. 1934)

Opinion

(Filed 2 May, 1934.)

Judgments L a —

In order to sustain a plea of estoppel by judgment in an action instituted after judgment of nonsuit the court must find that the allegations and evidence in the second action are substantially identical with the first.

APPEAL by plaintiff from Stack, J., at January Term, 1934, of GASTON. Reversed.

J. L. Hamme for plaintiff.

J. Laurence Jones for defendant.


In Batson v. Laundry Co., ante, 371, is the following: "In the case at bar the trial judge heard no evidence and found no facts. Hence, it does not appear whether the merits of the present case and substantially identical to the former case or not. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that the judgment dismissing the action upon the plea of estoppel, was prematurely and inadvertently made." For the reasons given, the judgment of the court below is

Reversed.


Summaries of

Ferguson v. Spinning Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina
May 1, 1934
174 S.E. 300 (N.C. 1934)
Case details for

Ferguson v. Spinning Co.

Case Details

Full title:EARL FERGUSON v. REX SPINNING COMPANY

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: May 1, 1934

Citations

174 S.E. 300 (N.C. 1934)
174 S.E. 300

Citing Cases

Shaw v. McNeill

No error. Affirmed. Cited: Bank v. Bradley, 117 N.C. 530; Main v. Field, 144 N.C. 308; Rasberry v. West, 205…