Legal Opinion

Smith v. . Insurance Company

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 9, 1930PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClabksoN, J.

The defendant, at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence and at the close of all the evidence, made motions for judgment as in case of nonsuit. C. S., 567. The court below granted defendant’s motion at the close of all the evidence-, and in this we think there was error.

Tbe questions involved: (1) "Was tbe plaintiff at tbe time of tbe alleged injury or disability, an employee of tbe News and Observer Publishing Company, under wbat is known as tbe substitute rule, and did tbe defendant issue tbe group insurance and through its agent or agents collect tbe insurance premiums from plaintiff with…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Gerringer v. North Carolina Home InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
  2. Collins v. Farmville Insurance & Banking Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1878
  3. Coggins v. . Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
  4. Strause v. Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1901
  5. Citizens National Life Insurance v. EgnerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1915

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Mahler v. . Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  2. Hill v. . Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  3. Hill v. Philadelphia Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  4. Mahler v. Milwaukee Mechanics InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  5. Landreth v. American Equitable Assurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1930

1 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