¶1 Tbe plaintiff and tbe defendant were equally in fault. If one can recover so can the other. Thus there would be “mutual faults and mutual recoveries, which would contradict tbe saying that ‘law is tbe perfection of reason.’” Herring v. R. R., 32 N. C., 402. It is settled by tbe decisions of this Court that tbe plaintiff is not entitled to damages- upon tbe verdict. Baker v. R. R., 118 N. C., 1015; Sasser v. Lumber Co., 165 N. C., 242; Carter v. R. R., ibid., 244, 255; Holton v. Moore, ibid., 549. It will be noted that there is no issue as to tbe last clear chance. Gunter v. Wicker, 85 N. C., 310; Edge v. R. R., 153 N. C., 212. Tbe appellant cites Wood v. Jones, ante, 356; but in that case tbe second issue was whether tbe defendant, not tbe plaintiff, bad by bis own negligence contributed to bis injury. A new trial was given because tbe verdict was indefinite.
¶2 No error.