Legal Opinion

Motsinger v. Perryman

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 19, 1940PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBakNhill, J.

It was admitted here that the defendant Perryman is solvent and able to pay the award made so that the rights of the plaintiff are not endangered by the controversy presented which is, as found by the Commission, primarily between the defendant Perryman and the defendant Associated Indemnity Corporation. This controversy is to be determined by the answers to two questions: (1) Was the policy canceled as between the employer and the insurance carrier? and (2) If so, was such cancellation effective as against the rights of the plaintiff employee ?

*18If tbe policy was not canceled tbe insurance…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Von Hoffman v. City of QuincySupreme Court of the United States · 1867
  2. Holgate Bros. v. BashoreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  3. Durham Provision Co. v. DavesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  4. State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Roberta Manufacturing Co. v. Royal Exchange Assurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1912

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. A-S-P Associates v. City of RaleighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  2. Carolina-Virginia Coastal Highway v. Coastal Turnpike AuthoritySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  3. Lutz Industries, Inc. v. Dixie Home StoresSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  4. State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. StateSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  5. In Re Annexation Ordinances Nos. 866-870, Etc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1961

23 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