Legal Opinion

Gorham v. . Insurance Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 8, 1939PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BARNHILL, J., did not participate in the rehearing of this case.

2DissentDevin, J.

The burden of the petition to rehear is that the Court has misinterpreted the record, or, if not, the record should be corrected and clarified to make it speak the truth, and as thus amended, reconsidered. In its initial allegation the petition is not unlike the one filed in Cook v.Mfg. Co., 183 N.C. 48, 110 S.E. 608. Beyond this the analogy ceases.

First. Exception is taken to the holding that the theory of the trial precluded any consideration on appeal of whether the case was one for the jury on the issue of accidental death or…

3Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Weil v. . HerringSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  2. Shipp Ex Rel. Shipp v. United Stage Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  3. Hedgecock v. Jefferson Standard Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  4. State v. . DeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  5. Walker v. . BurtSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

4Cited by8 opinions

  1. Gorham v. Mutual Ben. Health & Accident Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1940
  2. State v. DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  3. In re Will of FranksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  4. Smith v. Capital Coca-Cola Bottling Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  5. In Re Franks'willSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API