Barefoot v. Home Insurance

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Barefoot v. Home Insurance

204 N.C. 301

DecidedMarch 8, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 204 N.C. 301 (Barefoot v. Home Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barefoot v. Home Insurance, 204 N.C. 301 (N.C. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Adams, J.

The second lien was not in effect when the car was burned. It had previously been paid and discharged. The appeal is therefore to be determined by the principle enunciated in Cottingham v. Insurance Co., 168 N. C., 259. The encumbrance suspended the risk and the policy was revived when the encumbrance was discharged. The question of Thornton’s agency and the exceptions to the instructions relating to it need not be considered. It would have been erroneous to grant the defendant’s motion for nonsuit.

No error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Adams, J.

The second lien was not in effect when the car was burned. It had previously been paid and discharged. The appeal is therefore to be determined by the principle enunciated in Cottingham v. Insurance Co., 168 N. C., 259. The encumbrance suspended the risk and the policy was revived when the encumbrance was discharged. The question of Thornton’s agency and the exceptions to the instructions relating to it need not be considered. It would have been erroneous to grant the defendant’s motion for nonsuit.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 N.C. 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barefoot-v-home-insurance-nc-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack