
    C. R. SCOTTEN v. WILLIAM LANGLEY and V. M. DORSETT, Trading as D & L DRIVE-IN AND CITY TAXI.
    (Filed 13 October, 1954.)
    Appeal by plaintiff from Hubbard, Special Judge, August 1954 Term of Chatham.
    Civil action to recover damages for personal injuries from both defendants on the alleged grounds that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the alleged actionable negligence of the defendant William Langley in the operation of an automobile, and from the defendant Y. M. Dorsett upon the alleged ground that the defendants were engaged in the business of operating a place of business known as the D & L Drive-In and a taxi service to the general public in the Town of Siler City, known as City Taxi, and that the defendant Langley, while operating one of the taxis of Dorsett and Langley, struck the plaintiff with the taxi injuring him.
    
      At the close of plaintiff’s evidence, the defendant Y. M. Dorsett moved for judgment of nonsuit, which the court allowed, and the plaintiff excepted.
    Appropriate issues were submitted to the jury as to the defendant William Langley, and were answered in favor of the plaintiff — the issue of damages being answered $28,000.00. Judgment was entered in accord with the verdict.
    The plaintiff alone appeals. His sole assignment of error is that the lower court erred in signing judgment of nonsuit as to his cause of action against the defendant Y. M. Dorsett.
    
      Seawell & Wilson
    
    
      By: S. F. Seawell, Jr., for Plaintiff, Appellant.
    
    
      Claude Bittle for Defendant, Appellee.
    
   Pee, CuRiam.

We have carefully studied the evidence in the Eecord, considering it in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and giving him the benefit of every inference which the evidence fairly supports. A serious question arises as to whether the plaintiff has alleged a partnership between the defendants. Conceding, but not deciding that he has, we are of opinion, and so hold, that the evidence totally fails to make out a case to be submitted to the jury as against the defendant Y. M. Dorsett. The ruling of the lower court nonsuiting plaintiff’s cause of action against Y. M. Dorsett was correct, and is

Affirmed.  