This case falls within the principles laid down in Holder v. R. R., 160 N. C., 6, and the cases there cited, and upon these authorities the judgment of nonsuit is
Affirmed.
Stout v. Southern Railway Co., 164 N.C. 384 (1913)
Dec. 10, 1913
·
Supreme Court of North Carolina
164 N.C. 384
LYDIA L. STOUT, Administratrix, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
(Filed 10 December, 1913.)
Railroads — Negligence—T rials — Evidence—Nonsuit.
In this action against a railroad company for damages for the negligent killing of plaintiff’s intestate by defendant’s train, the evidence tending to show that at sundown the intestate was seen sitting on a cross-tie of the track over which the train passed, with his elbows on his knees and his head bent down, and that alarm signals of the approaching train were several times given at a distance of about 150 to 200 feet: Held, the decision is controlled by Bolder v. R. R., 160 N. C., 6.
Appeal by plaintiff from Peebles, J., at May Term, 1913, of ALAMANCE. ‘ '
This is an action" to recover damages for the alleged negligent killing of the plaintiff’s intestate. The evidence offered upon the part of the plaintiff tends to prove that on 1Y October, 1910, the plaintiff’s intestate, at about sundown, was seen sitting on a cross-tie on the south side of the railroad track, with his elbows on his knees and head bent down.
*385There was also evidence that tbe train, while approaching the deceased, blew the alarm signals several times when about 150 or 200 feet distant.
There was judgment of nonsuit, and the plaintiff excepted and 'appealed.
Lamerón & Long for plaintiff.
Parker & Parker for defendant.