Hall v. Atkinson

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Jarrett

    157 S.E.2d 4 (N.C. 1967)   Cited 23 times

    Conceding, arguendo, that the photograph was immaterial and irrelevant, its admission was cured when evidence of like import was admitted before and after the admission of the photograph. Wood v. Insurance Co., 245 N.C. 383, 96 S.E.2d 28; Hall v. Atkinson, 255 N.C. 579, 122 S.E.2d 200. Defendant also assigns as error the admission into evidence of certain bank bags as exhibits.

  2. Glace v. Pilot Mountain

    143 S.E.2d 78 (N.C. 1965)   Cited 11 times
    Stating that “a municipality has the right to condemn property for the construction and operation of sewage systems and related facilities.”

    The assertion of prejudicial error in permitting the witnesses to testify cannot be sustained. Hall v. Atkinson, 255 N.C. 579, 122 S.E.2d 200; Stockwell v. Brown, 254 N.C. 662, 119 S.E.2d 795; Lookabill v. Regan, 247 N.C. 199, 100 S.E.2d 521. The last of defendant's assignments of error which requires discussion is directed to the judgment.

  3. Smith v. Simpson

    260 N.C. 601 (N.C. 1963)   Cited 28 times
    In Smith v. Simpson, 260 N.C. 601, 611, 133 S.E.2d 474, 482 (1963), for example, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that a father who provided his co-signature to help his son obtain financing to purchase a car was not liable under the family purpose doctrine.

    However, the substantially similar statements made by McCants thereafter admitted without objection cured the error. Strong, North Carolina Index, Appeal and Error, s. 41; Hall v. Atkinson, 255 N.C. 579, 122 S.E.2d 200. The other exceptions relating to the exclusion of evidence have been carefully considered. They are without merit.

  4. Wilson v. Hardware, Inc.

    259 N.C. 660 (N.C. 1963)   Cited 18 times
    In Wilson v. Hardware, Inc., 259 N.C. 660, 131 S.E.2d 501 (1963), the plaintiff brought an action against the manufacturer for injuries caused by the breaking of a ladder.

    Even if the witness had not been qualified to speak, testimony from one not qualified, which merely corroborates other evidence admittedly competent, would at most he harmless error, not warranting a new trial. Bullin v. Moore, 256 N.C. 82, 122 S.E.2d 765; Hall v. Atkinson, 255 N.C. 579, 122 S.E.2d 200; In re Will of Knight, 250 N.C. 634, 109 S.E.2d 470. Did the court err in refusing to allow Michigan's motion for nonsuit?

  5. State v. Hyder

    396 S.E.2d 86 (N.C. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 5 times
    Substituting name of county from which indictment was issued did not substantially alter charge

    Stockwell v. Brown, 254 N.C. 662, 667, 119 S.E.2d 795, 798 (1961). See also Wilson County Board of Ed. v. Lamm, 276 N.C. 487, 173 S.E.2d 281 (1970); Hall v. Atkinson, 255 N.C. 579, 122 S.E.2d 200 (1961). Based upon the settled law, the defendant was not prejudiced by admission of Dale's statement.