Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina

Bell v. . Hansley

48 N.C. 131

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction
North Carolina
Date
1855-12-05
Topic
general

Nash, C. J. This case presents the question, whether, when two men fight together* thereby committing an affray, either is guilty of an assault and battery upon the other. Jus *132 tice Puller in liis Nisi Prius, at page 16, says, each does commit an assault and battery upon the other, and that each can maintain an action for it. He refers to a case at Abingdon, Boulter v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Bell v. . Hansley. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
10 opinions
BELLv. HANSLEY,48 N.C. 131(1855)
GEORGE W. BELLvs. WILLIAM M. HANSLEY.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
(December Term, 1855.)
One may recover in an action for assault and battery, although he agreed to fight with his adversary; for such agreement to break the peace being void, the maximvolenti non fit injuriadoes not apply.
THIS was an action of TRESPASS, ASSAULT AND BATTERY, tried before ELLIS, Judge, at the Fall Term, 1855, of New Hanover Superior Court.
The plaintiff proved the assault and battery; and there was evidence tending to show a mutual affray and fighting by consent.

The defendant called upon his Honor to instruct the jury, that if the parties mutually assented to, and participated in, a breach of the peace, the plaintiff could not recover.

But his Honor was of opinion, and so advised the jury, that notwithstanding the fact that the parties had mutually assented to an affray, the plaintiff was, nevertheless, entitled to recover; but that the fact relied on as a defense, was proper to be considered by the jury in mitigation of damages. The defendant excepted to these instructions.

Verdict for the plaintiff. Judgment and appeal.
Reid, for plaintiff.W. A. Wright, for the defendant.
NASH, C. J.
This case presents the question, whether, when two men fight together, thereby committing an affray, either is guilty of an assault and battery upon the other. JusticePage 132BULLER in his Nisi Prius, at page 16, says, each does commit an assault and battery upon the other, and that each can maintain an action for it. He refers to a case at Abingdon,Boulter v. Clark, when Serjeant Hayward appeared for the defendant, and offered to prove that the parties fought by consent, and insisted, that this, under the maximvolenti non fit injuria, applied. PARKER, Chief Baron, denied it, and said, "the fighting being unlawful, the consent of the plaintiff to fight would be no bar to his action, and that he was entitled to a verdict." Mr. Stephens in his Nisi Prius, 211, lays down the same doctrine — "If two men engage in a boxing-match, an action can be sustained by either of them against the other, if an assault be made; because the act of boxing is unlawful, and the consent of the parties to fight cannot excuse the injury."

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.