Brown v. Bass
261 N.C. 739
N.C.
1964
Check Treatment
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 *740are 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.