Legal Opinion

Bullock v. Expressmen's Mutual Life Insurance

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 10, 1951No. 103PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDeviN, C. J.

The policy of insurance out of which this controversy arose was taken out by the insured primarily for the benefit of his wife with provision to the effect that if she did not survive him a foster son should become the beneficiary. It was clearly expressed in the policy that upon the death of the insured the insurance money should be paid to his wife, Maydie Taylor Bullock, if living, or if not living to Rudolph Pink Bullock. Maydie Taylor Bullock did not predecease her husband, and is still living, but the law will not permit her to derive benefit from the «death of the insured since…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. New York Mutual Life Insurance v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Bryant v. . BryantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  3. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. HoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  4. Schmidt v. Northern Life Ass'nSupreme Court of Iowa · 1900
  5. Box v. LanierTennessee Supreme Court · 1903

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Johnny Overstreet, Administrator of the Estate of David Wilkey, Deceased v. Kentucky Central Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1991
  2. Fidelity Bankers Life Insurance v. DortchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  3. Carter v. CarterSupreme Court of Florida · 1956
  4. Georgia Webb v. Sue Ann Martin Voirol, Helen A. Martin v. Sue Ann Martin VoirolCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1985
  5. Jones v. All American Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985

16 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