The opinion
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff’s assertion of error is based on the contention that the answers given by the jury to the second and third issues *740 are so inconsistent that no judgment could be entered thereon and, because of the inconsistency, the verdict should have been set aside in toto and a new trial ordered.
The argument made for plaintiff has been made on several occasions in the past and rejected. Sasser v. Lumber Company, 165 N.C. 242 , 81 S.E. 320 ; Holton v. Moore, 165 N.C. 549 , 81 S.E. 779 ; Oates v. Herrin, 197 N.C. 171 , 148 S.E. 30 ; McKoy v. Craven, 198 N.C. 780 , 153 S.E. 412 ; Allen v. Yarborough, 201 N.C. 568 , 160 S.E. 833 ; Crane v. Carswell, 203 N.C. 555 , 166 S.E. 746 ; Bullard v. Ross, 205 N.C. 495 , 171 S.E. 789 ; Butler v. Gantt, 220 N.C. 711 , 18 S.E. 2d 119 ; Swann v. Bigelow, 243 N.C. 285 , 90 S.E. 2d 396 . The latest application of the rule will be found in Clodfelter v. Carroll, ante 630.
No error.