Headen v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

175 S.E. 282, 206 N.C. 860, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 332
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided July 11, 1934·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

Tbe burden of tbe petition to rehear is, tbat tbe clause in tbe policy, “or in case of any claim under tbis policy,” liability shall be limited, etc., is not affected by tbe provision, “nor shall payment be resisted on account of any misrepresentation as to tbe physical condition of tbe applicant, except in cases of fraud,” C. S., 6460, and for tbis *862 position tbe cases of Reinhardt v. Ins. Co., 201 N. C., 785, 161 S. E., 528, and Gilmore v. Ins. Co., 199 N. C., 632, 155 S. E., 566, are cited as controlling authorities.

Tbe plaintiff, on tbe other band, contends that tbe case is governed by tbe decisions in Potts v. Ins. Co., ante, 257; Holbrook v. Ins. Co., 196 N. C., 333, 145 S. E., 609, and McNeal v. Ins. Co., 192 N. C., 450, 135 S. E., 300.

Tbe record does not call for a determination of tbe point. Tbe jury rejected tbe defendant’s evidence, and, on tbe verdict, tbe plaintiff is entitled to recover. Tbe questions debated on brief and in tbe certificate of counsel are not before us for decision. It is not a matter for review on appeal that tbe jury declined to believe tbe evidence of one of tbe parties, or that tbe trial court refused to set aside tbe verdict as against tbe weight of tbe evidence. Goodman v. Goodman, 201 N. C., 808, 161 S. E., 686.

We were originally in error in thinking that a verdict bad been directed for tbe plaintiff. Tbe inadvertence, however, was not against tbe appellant, but rather in its favor. Tbe case was brought back in order that it might be permitted to go off on tbe jury’s findings — tbe course it should have taken in tbe first instance. Thus, while tbe decision is placed upon other grounds, tbe result is tbe same. For this purpose only is tbe

Petition allowed.

Sohenok, J., took no part in tbe consideration or decision of this ease.

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

Headen v. Metropolitan Life Insurance, 175 S.E. 282, 206 N.C. 860, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 332 (N.C. 1934).

175 S.E. 282 (Headen v. Metropolitan Life Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Daw
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2021
State v. Heavner
741 S.E.2d 897 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2013)
Gilmore v. Imperial Life Insurance
200 S.E. 407 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
Whitaker v. Jefferson Standard Life Insurance
196 S.E. 328 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)