
    WILLIAM B. REID, Administrator, v. LEWIS SUSTAR et al.
    (Filed 1 May, 1935.)
    Negligence A c — Doctrine of attractive nuisance held not to warrant recovery for intestate’s death under evidence in this case.
    Evidence that plaintiff’s intestate, a thirteen-year-old boy, went to defendant’s com mill to return an implement, or take some corn to be ground, and that while there he engaged in a friendly fight with boys in the mill, wrestling and throwing corncobs, and that intestate, contrary to repeated warnings given by defendant to boys around the mill, went into the engine room, while defendant was not looking, to get more corncobs for the fight, and there came in contact with revolving machinery resulting in injury causing his death, is held insufficient to resist defendant’s motion as of nonsuit.
    Appeal by plaintiff from Clement, J., at February Term, 1935, of MeOKLENBPRG.
    
      Civil action to recover damages for death of plaintiff’s intestate, alleged to have been caused by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of the defendants.
    The facts are these: On 20 November, 1931, plaintiff’s intestate, a Negro 'boy, thirteen years of age, went to the corn mill operated by the defendants, either to return a scoop or shovel, which belonged to the mill, or to take some corn to be ground, or both. While there, he and three other Negro boys began playing, wrestling, and throwing corncobs at each other. ’Twas a friendly battle with corncobs. The operator of the mill frequently warned the boys to stay out of the engine room where there was a large pile of corncobs. Contrary to such warning, when the miller was not looking, plaintiff’s intestate ran into the engine room to get more cobs, to be used in the juvenile war, and in reaching for them over a revolving shaft, his clothing caught on the shaft and he was thrown around it and severely injured, from which he later died.
    Judgment of nonsuit entered at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, from which he appeals, assigning errors.
    
      G. T. Carswell and Joe W. Ervin for plaintiff.
    
    
      Stewart & Bobbitt and James 0. Moore for defendants.
    
   Staoy, C. J.,

after stating the case: It is not perceived upon what theory plaintiff is entitled to recover of the defendants in this case. Briscoe v. Light & Power Co., 148 N. C., 396, 62 S. E., 600. The judgment of nonsuit is correct. Boyd v. R. R., 207 N. C., 390.

Affirmed.  