
    J. H. HARRIS v. HELEN SMITH, Administratrix.
    (Filed 18 October, 1939.)
    1. Trial §§ 22b, 24—
    Upon a motion to nonsuit, tbe evidence must be considered in tbe light most favorable to plaintiff, and tbe case must be submitted to tbe jury if a cause of action is made out, even though tbe damages shown be slight or only nominal.
    2. Agriculture § 7e—
    Evidence of lease agreement to rent farm lands for a term of one year and the landlord’s breach of the agreement held, sufficient for the jury.
    Appeal by plaintiff from Williams, J., at March Term, 1939, of Pitt. Civil action to recover damages for breach of rental contract.
    There is evidence on the record permitting tbe inference that in December, 1937, defendant’s intestate, Marcellus Smith, agreed to rent to the plaintiff for the ensuing year “four acres in tobacco, four acres in cotton and six acres in corn”; that it is the general custom “when the landlord furnishes the team, each gets one-half of the crop”; that plaintiff cleaned up the vacant house which he was to occupy on defendant’s place, but was prevented from moving in because there had been “some backing out.” Plaintiff worked elsewhere during 1938, but made very little.
    From judgment of nonsuit entered at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, he appeals, assigning errors.
    
      R. T. Martin for plaintiff, appellant.
    
    
      John Hill Paylor for defendant, appellee.
    
   Stacy, C. J.

Viewing the evidence in its most favorable light for the plaintiff, as we are required to do on motion to nonsuit, it appears to be sufficient to carry the case to the jury, albeit the damages shown would seem to be slight or only nominal. See Gulley v. Raynor, 185 N. C., 96, 116 S. E., 171; Perry v. Kime, 169 N. C., 540, 86 S. E., 337; Machine Co. v. Tobacco Co., 141 N. C., 284, 53 S. E., 885; Herring v. Armwood, 130 N. C., 177, 41 S. E., 96; Spencer v. Hamilton, 113 N. C., 49, 18 S. E., 167.

Reversed.  