case comes within rule in North Carolina

1960It will generally do so when the error, or reason for the new trial, is confined to one issue, which is entirely separable from the others and it is perfectly clear that there is no danger of complication.” This case comes within the rule stated by Justice Walker as to when a partial new trial will be ordered, and in awarding a partial new trial upon the issue of damages alone, we find precedents in our following decisions: Lieb v. Mayer, 244 N.C. 613 , 94 S.E. 2d 658 ; Hinson v. Dawson, 241 N.C. 714 , 86 S.E. 2d 585 ; Journigan v. Ice Co., 233 N.C. 180 , 63 S.E. 2d 183 ; Pinnix v. Griffin, 22

1960It will generally do so when the error, or reason for the new trial, is confined to one issue, which is entirely separable from the others and it is perfectly clear that there is no danger of complication.” This case comes within the rule stated by Justice Walker as to when a partial new trial will be ordered, and in awarding a partial new trial upon the issue of damages alone, we find precedents in our following decisions: Lieb v. Mayer, 244 N.C. 613 , 94 S.E. 2d 658 ; Hinson v. Dawson, 241 N.C. 714 , 86 S.E. 2d 585 ; Journigan v. Ice Co., 233 N.C. 180 , 63 S.E. 2d 183 ; Pinnix v. Griffin, 22

1960It will generally do so when the error, or reason for the new trial, is confined to one issue, which is entirely separable from the others and it is perfectly clear that there is no danger of complication.” This case comes within the rule stated by Justice Walker as to when a partial new trial will be ordered, and in awarding a partial new trial upon the issue of damages alone, we find precedents in our following decisions: Lieb v. Mayer, 244 N.C. 613 , 94 S.E. 2d 658 ; Hinson v. Dawson, 241 N.C. 714 , 86 S.E. 2d 585 ; Journigan v. Ice Co., 233 N.C. 180 , 63 S.E. 2d 183 ; Pinnix v. Griffin, 22

1960It will generally do so when the error, or reason for the new trial, is confined to one issue, which is entirely separable from the others and it is perfectly clear that there is no danger of complication.” This case comes within the rule stated by Justice Walker as to when a partial new trial will be ordered, and in awarding a partial new trial upon the issue of damages alone, we find precedents in our following decisions: Lieb v. Mayer, 244 N.C. 613 , 94 S.E. 2d 658 ; Hinson v. Dawson, 241 N.C. 714 , 86 S.E. 2d 585 ; Journigan v. Ice Co., 233 N.C. 180 , 63 S.E. 2d 183 ; Pinnix v. Griffin, 22

1960It will generally do so when the error, or reason for the new trial, is confined to one issue, which is entirely separable from the others and it is perfectly clear that there is no danger of complication.” This case comes within the rule stated by Justice Walker as to when a partial new trial will be ordered, and in awarding a partial new trial upon the issue of damages alone, we find precedents in our following decisions: Lieb v. Mayer, 244 N.C. 613 , 94 S.E. 2d 658 ; Hinson v. Dawson, 241 N.C. 714 , 86 S.E. 2d 585 ; Journigan v. Ice Co., 233 N.C. 180 , 63 S.E. 2d 183 ; Pinnix v. Griffin, 22

1960It will generally do so when the error, or reason for the new trial, is confined to one issue, which is entirely separable from the others and it is perfectly clear that there is no danger of complication.” This case comes within the rule stated by Justice Walker as to when a partial new trial will be ordered, and in awarding a partial new trial upon the issue of damages alone, we find precedents in our following decisions: Lieb v. Mayer, 244 N.C. 613 , 94 S.E. 2d 658 ; Hinson v. Dawson, 241 N.C. 714 , 86 S.E. 2d 585 ; Journigan v. Ice Co., 233 N.C. 180 , 63 S.E. 2d 183 ; Pinnix v. Griffin, 22

1960It will generally do so when the error, or reason for the new trial, is confined to one issue, which is entirely separable from the others and it is perfectly clear that there is no danger of complication.” This case comes within the rule stated by Justice Walker as to when a partial new trial will be ordered, and in awarding a partial new trial upon the issue of damages alone, we find precedents in our following decisions: Lieb v. Mayer, 244 N.C. 613 , 94 S.E. 2d 658 ; Hinson v. Dawson, 241 N.C. 714 , 86 S.E. 2d 585 ; Journigan v. Ice Co., 233 N.C. 180 , 63 S.E. 2d 183 ; Pinnix v. Griffin, 22

1960It will generally do so when the error, or reason for the new trial, is confined to one issue, which is entirely separable from the others and it is perfectly clear that there is no danger of complication.” This case comes within the rule stated by Justice Walker as to when a partial new trial will be ordered, and in awarding a partial new trial upon the issue of damages alone, we find precedents in our following decisions: Lieb v. Mayer, 244 N.C. 613 , 94 S.E. 2d 658 ; Hinson v. Dawson, 241 N.C. 714 , 86 S.E. 2d 585 ; Journigan v. Ice Co., 233 N.C. 180 , 63 S.E. 2d 183 ; Pinnix v. Griffin, 22

1960It will generally do so when the error, or reason for the new trial, is confined to one issue, which is entirely separable from the others and it is perfectly clear that there is no danger of complication.” This case comes within the rule stated by Justice Walker as to when a partial new trial will be ordered, and in awarding a partial new trial upon the issue of damages alone, we find precedents in our following decisions: Lieb v. Mayer, 244 N.C. 613 , 94 S.E. 2d 658 ; Hinson v. Dawson, 241 N.C. 714 , 86 S.E. 2d 585 ; Journigan v. Ice Co., 233 N.C. 180 , 63 S.E. 2d 183 ; Pinnix v. Griffin, 22

1960It will generally do so when the error, or reason for the new trial, is confined to one issue, which is entirely separable from the others and it is perfectly clear that there is no danger of complication.” This case comes within the rule stated by Justice Walker as to when a partial new trial will be ordered, and in awarding a partial new trial upon the issue of damages alone, we find precedents in our following decisions: Lieb v. Mayer, 244 N.C. 613 , 94 S.E. 2d 658 ; Hinson v. Dawson, 241 N.C. 714 , 86 S.E. 2d 585 ; Journigan v. Ice Co., 233 N.C. 180 , 63 S.E. 2d 183 ; Pinnix v. Griffin, 22

1960Co., 208 N. *805 C. 152, 179 S.E. 438 ; Johnson v. R.

1956Co., 208 N.C. 152 , 179 S.E. 438 ; Johnson v. R.

1925Eliminating, at present, the question of fraud, we are -of the opinion that this case comes within the doctrine announced in Kerr v. Sanders, 122 N. C., 635 .

1925Eliminating, at present, the question of fraud, we are of the opinion that this case comes within the doctrine announced in Kerr v. Sanders , 122 N.C. 635 .

1976The exception asserted by the State was stated, but not applied, in State v. Birckhead, 256 N.C. 494, 498 , 124 S.E. 2d 838 (1962), and the exception states that “conviction of a minor offense in an inferior court does not bar a prosecution for a higher crime, embracing the former, where the inferior court did not have jurisdiction of the higher crime.” In accord with this rule is the United States Supreme Court decision, Diaz v. U. S., 223 U.S. 442 , 56 L.Ed. 500 , 32 S.Ct. 250 (1912).

1976The exception asserted by the State was stated, but not applied, in State v. Birckhead, 256 N.C. 494, 498 , 124 S.E. 2d 838 (1962), and the exception states that “conviction of a minor offense in an inferior court does not bar a prosecution for a higher crime, embracing the former, where the inferior court did not have jurisdiction of the higher crime.” In accord with this rule is the United States Supreme Court decision, Diaz v. U. S., 223 U.S. 442 , 56 L.Ed. 500 , 32 S.Ct. 250 (1912).

1976The exception asserted by the State was stated, but not applied, in State v. Birckhead, 256 N.C. 494, 498 , 124 S.E. 2d 838 (1962), and the exception states that “conviction of a minor offense in an inferior court does not bar a prosecution for a higher crime, embracing the former, where the inferior court did not have jurisdiction of the higher crime.” In accord with this rule is the United States Supreme Court decision, Diaz v. U. S., 223 U.S. 442 , 56 L.Ed. 500 , 32 S.Ct. 250 (1912).

1976The exception asserted by the State was stated, but not applied, in State v. Birckhead, 256 N.C. 494, 498 , 124 S.E. 2d 838 (1962), and the exception states that “conviction of a minor offense in an inferior court does not bar a prosecution for a higher crime, embracing the former, where the inferior court did not have jurisdiction of the higher crime.” In accord with this rule is the United States Supreme Court decision, Diaz v. U. S., 223 U.S. 442 , 56 L.Ed. 500 , 32 S.Ct. 250 (1912).

1960It will generally do so when the error, or reason for the new trial, is confined to one issue, which is entirely separable from the others and it is perfectly clear that there is no danger of complication.” This case comes within the rule stated by Justice Walker as to when a partial new trial will be ordered, and in awarding a partial new trial upon the issue of damages alone, we find precedents in our following decisions: Lieb v. Mayer, 244 N.C. 613 , 94 S.E. 2d 658 ; Hinson v. Dawson, 241 N.C. 714 , 86 S.E. 2d 585 ; Journigan v. Ice Co., 233 N.C. 180 , 63 S.E. 2d 183 ; Pinnix v. Griffin, 22

1960It will generally do so when the error, or reason for the new trial, is confined to one issue, which is entirely separable from the others and it is perfectly clear that there is no danger of complication.” This case comes within the rule stated by Justice Walker as to when a partial new trial will be ordered, and in awarding a partial new trial upon the issue of damages alone, we find precedents in our following decisions: Lieb v. Mayer, 244 N.C. 613 , 94 S.E. 2d 658 ; Hinson v. Dawson, 241 N.C. 714 , 86 S.E. 2d 585 ; Journigan v. Ice Co., 233 N.C. 180 , 63 S.E. 2d 183 ; Pinnix v. Griffin, 22

1953R., 194 N.C. 210 , 139 S.E. 237 , and numerous other cases cited in Morris v. Transport Co., supra. This exculpates Nixon Brothers.

1953R., 194 N.C. 210 , 139 S.E. 237 , and numerous other cases cited in Morris v. Transport Co., supra. This exculpates Nixon Brothers.

1928Co., 185 N. C., 121 .

1908R., 119 N. C., 693 , or Mfg.

1907As indicated in the opinion, however, where the facts show, as in this case, that from the attendant circumstances or the terms of the agreement some person other than the consignee is the one whose legal right is denied and who is alone interested in having the transportation properly made, a different rule obtains and the case comes within the principle of Summer's case, 138 N. C., 295 .

1904We do not think the case comes within the principle of State v. Huntley, 91 N. C., 617 , especially in view of the particular findings of the jury, upon which the verdict must have been based, when it is considered in connection with the charge.

1904The case in this respect is more like that of State v. Stafford, supra. We find no error in the case and no defect in the record.

1904The plaintiff contends that this case comes within the principle well settled by this Court in Moose v. Carson , 104 N.C. 431 , 7 L.R.A., 548 , 17 Am.

1900This case comes within the principle laid down in Bunting v. Gales, 77 N. C., 283 , which is decisive of this.

1890This case comes within the rule applied in Harrison v. Bray, 92 N. C., *311 488; Ellett v. Newman, ibid., 519; Whitaker v. Hill, 96 N. C., 2 ; Lumber Co. v. Wallace 93 N. C., 22 .

1890This case comes within the rule applied in Harrison v. Bray, 92 N. C., *311 488; Ellett v. Newman, ibid., 519; Whitaker v. Hill, 96 N. C., 2 ; Lumber Co. v. Wallace 93 N. C., 22 .