
    UTICA FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. J. ROMIE SUTTON and AZILE SUTTON.
    (Filed 22 May, 1957.)
    Appeal by plaintiff from Nimocks, J., October Term 1956 of Durham.
    This is a civil action instituted by the plaintiff to recover for damages growing out of an automobile collision which occurred on South Duke Street in the City of Durham, North Carolina, about 2:50 p.m. on 14 June 1952.
    An automobile belonging to the plaintiff’s insured, Thomas G. Shepherd, was parked on the west side of Duke Street near the curb, headed south, and was struck by the car of the defendant J. Romie Sutton while being driven south on Duke Street by his daughter, Azile Sutton.
    Azile Sutton is a minor and no guardian ad litem having been appointed to represent her, only J. Romie Sutton filed answer.
    The plaintiff’s evidence tends to show that at the time of the collision, Azile Sutton was driving said automobile with the permission of her father, and just before the collision she was talking to her mother, who was a passenger in the car she was driving, and looked up too late to avoid hitting the Shepherd car.
    The parties stipulated that the damages to the automobile owned by the plaintiff’s insured resulting from the collision were $373.74 and the plaintiff paid its insured therefor the sum of $323.74 under the provisions of its collision policy of insurance and seeks recovery in the amount it paid out under its right of subrogation.
    At the close of plaintiff’s evidence the defendant J. Romie Sutton moved for judgment as of nonsuit, and the motion was allowed.
    Plaintiff appeals, assigning error.
    
      
      E. K. Powe for plaintiff appellant.
    
    
      No counsel contra.
    
   PeR Curiam.

The plaintiff excepts to and assigns as error the ruling of the court below in sustaining the motion for judgment as of nonsuit.

A review of the evidence revealed by the record on appeal, including the stipulations entered into by the parties, leads us to the conclusion that the case should have been submitted to the jury. Hence, the judgment below is

Reversed.  