From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lewis v. Stout

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Mar 1, 1932
202 N.C. 836 (N.C. 1932)

Summary

In Stout v. Lewis, 11 La.App. 503, 123 So. 346, 348, plaintiffs' minor son, John Stout, Jr., in violation of a city ordinance, was riding on the running board of an automobile when it collided with another car.

Summary of this case from Robinson v. Miller

Opinion

(Filed 9 March, 1932.)

APPEAL by defendants from Cranmer, J., at November Term, 1931, of LEE.

Kenneth C. Royall and D.C. Humphrey for plaintiff.

H. C. Renegar and A. A. F. Seawell for defendants.


Proceeding before the Industrial Commission for an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Award allowed from which the defendants appealed to the Superior Court where the findings and conclusions of the Commission were approved. From the judgment of the Superior Court, the defendants appeal.


The record discloses no valid exceptive assignment of error.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Lewis v. Stout

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Mar 1, 1932
202 N.C. 836 (N.C. 1932)

In Stout v. Lewis, 11 La.App. 503, 123 So. 346, 348, plaintiffs' minor son, John Stout, Jr., in violation of a city ordinance, was riding on the running board of an automobile when it collided with another car.

Summary of this case from Robinson v. Miller

In Stout v. Lewis, 11 La. App. 503, 123 So. 346, we considered the question of whether or not a person riding on the running board of an automobile could be precluded from recovering by reason of the fact that he had carelessly placed himself in a position of danger and' we held that, unless the position assumed by the person could be said to be responsible for the injury, he could not be deprived of recovery.

Summary of this case from Balsamo v. Hall
Case details for

Lewis v. Stout

Case Details

Full title:WM. H. LEWIS v. J. W. STOUT ET AL

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Mar 1, 1932

Citations

202 N.C. 836 (N.C. 1932)
162 S.E. 923

Citing Cases

Willi v. Schaefer Hitchcock Co.

From the following authorities, the rule is that it is a question of the agent's right or authority to invite…

Washtenaw Rd. Com'rs v. P.S. Comm

A revisal repealing all acts repugnant to the provisions thereof cannot affect statutes which are omitted,…