Legal Opinion

Anderson v. American Mutual Liability Insurance

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 16, 1936PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClaRksojV, J.

We cannot sustain the nonsuit as we construe the record. If the car in the collision was G.M.O. 2-T truck 1927, Serial Ho. 50574, Motor Ho. 1991549, on which plaintiff had liability insurance in defendant company, the matter of identification was for the jury to determine. When the new engine was installed in the truck, the Motor Ho. 1954668 and Serial Ho. T-50379 did not change it, as it was the same truck with repairs. Repairing the truck by placing a motor and chassis in it did not make a new ear. The number of an automobile is inserted generally for the purpose of identification. The…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. St. Louis Dressed Beef & Provision Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1906
  2. Lowe v. . Fidelity and Casualty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  3. Twin City Motor Co. v. Rouzer Motor Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
  4. Mewborn v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
  5. Reimers v. International Indemnity Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1927

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Jamestown Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  2. Nixon v. Liberty Mutual Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
  3. Queen City Coach Co. v. Lumberton Coach Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  4. Cab Co. v. . Casualty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  5. Blue Bird Cab Co. v. American Fidelity & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1941

9 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