# Hinton v. Cline

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · June 12, 1953 · 238 N.C. 136

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1386346

## Case

- **Full name:** J. J. Hinton v. Archie Cline and William Freeman
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** June 12, 1953
- **Citations:** 238 N.C. 136; 76 S.E.2d 162; 1953 N.C. LEXIS 727
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion by Ervin
- **Judges:** Ervin
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1386346

## Opinion text

Ervin, J.
The plaintiff assigns as error the refusal of the trial judge to set the verdict aside and award him a new trial on the ground of inadequacy of the damages.
The granting or the denying of a motion for a new trial on the ground that the damages assessed by the jury are excessive or inadequate is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.
McClamroch v. Ice Co.,
217 N.C. 106 , 6 S.E. 2d 850 ;
Johnston v. Johnston,
213 N.C. 255 , 195 S.E. 807 ;
Waller v. Hipp,
208 N.C. 117 , 179 S.E. 428 ;
Blum v. R. R.,
187 N.C. 640 , 122 S.E. 562 ;
Hoke v. Whisnant,
174 N.C. 658 , 94 S.E. 446 ;
Harvey v. Railroad Company,
153 N.C. 567 , 69 S.E. 627 ;
Billings v. Observer,
150 N.C. 540 , 64 S.E. 435 ;
Braddy v. Elliott,
146 N.C. 578 , 60 S.E. 507 ;
Boney v. Railroad,
145 N.C. 248 , 58 S.E. 1082 ;
Slocumb v. Construction Co.,
142 N.C. 349 , 55 S.E. 196 ;
Phillips v. Telegraph Co.,
*138
130 N.C. 513 , 41 S.E. 1022 ;
Burns v. Railroad,
125 N.C. 304 , 34 S.E. 495 ;
Benton v. Collins,
125 N.C. 83 , 34 S.E. 242 , 47 L.R.A. 33 ;
Benton v. Railroad,
122 N.C. 1007 , 30 S.E. 333 ;
Norton v. Railroad,
122 N.C. 910 , 29 S.E. 886 ;
Goodson v. Mullin and Derr,
92 N.C. 211 ;
Brown v. Morris,
20 N.C. 565 ;
Young v. Hairston,
14 N.C. 54 . His decision on tbe motion will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is obvious that be abused bis discretion.
Lamm v. Lorbacher,
235 N.C. 728 , 71 S.E. 2d 49 ;
Francis v. Francis,
223 N.C. 401 , 26 S.E. 2d 907 ;
Freeman v. Bell,
150 N.C. 146 , 63 S.E. 682 .
An abuse of discretion does not appear in tbe case at bar. Indeed, tbe evidence at tbe trial was consistent witb tbe view tbat tbe plaintiff’s personal injuries were limited to temporary bruises.
No error.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1386346. Public record. Not legal advice.