Kinsey v. Efferson Standard Life Insurance

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Kinsey v. Efferson Standard Life Insurance

106 S.E. 842, 181 N.C. 478, 1921 N.C. LEXIS 111

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 9, 1921

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 106 S.E. 842 (Kinsey v. Efferson Standard Life 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

Kinsey v. Efferson Standard Life Insurance, 106 S.E. 842, 181 N.C. 478, 1921 N.C. LEXIS 111 (N.C. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff’s chief exception is to tbe court’s refusal to instruct tbe jury tbat tbe evidence was not sufficient to warrant a finding in favor of tbe defendant. Bearing upon tbis motion, tbe following is 'taken from tbe plaintiff’s brief:

“Briefly summarized, tbe deceased bad only a few minutes before finished eating dinner, be bad left tbe table, going into an adjoining room. His wife beard a noise which attracted her attention. She went to tbe room and found her husband lying on tbe floor witb a (pistol-shot) wound, which was shown to be in bis temple, a little above and a little to tbe front of bis right ear. Tbe witnesses locate bis body slightly different, but in tbe main it is agreed by all tbat bis feet were some distance, variously estimated from two to three feet, from a book case, tbat bis bead was towards tbe door, and bis body lying alongside of, witb bis right arm slightly under a table tbat stood between tbe bookcase and tbe door. Tbe deceased’s pistol, which usually stayed upon tbe bookcase, was found slightly under tbe bookcase from tbe deceased’s bead as it lay upon tbe floor, tbe distance to tbe pistol was in addition to tbe length of bis body, two or three feet to tbe bookcase.”

In addition, there was evidence tending to show tbat the intestate was a heavy drinker; tbat be bad been drinking for two days immediately preceding bis death; tbat be was a nervous, irritable, and high-tempered' man; tbat tbe wound on bis bead was black and ragged, and tbe hair scorched, indicating tbat tbe pistol was held in close proximity to bis bead at tbe time it was fired.

Upon tbis evidence we think bis Honor very properly submitted tbe issue to tbe jury, and tbat they were warranted in answering it in tbe affirmative.

We have carefully examined tbe record and plaintiff’s exceptions, and find no error of which plaintiff can justly complain.

No error.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff’s chief exception is to tbe court’s refusal to instruct tbe jury tbat tbe evidence was not sufficient to warrant a finding in favor of tbe defendant. Bearing upon tbis motion, tbe following is 'taken from tbe plaintiff’s brief:

“Briefly summarized, tbe deceased bad only a few minutes before finished eating dinner, be bad left tbe table, going into an adjoining room. His wife beard a noise which attracted her attention. She went to tbe room and found her husband lying on tbe floor witb a (pistol-shot) wound, which was shown to be in bis temple, a little above and a little to tbe front of bis right ear. Tbe witnesses locate bis body slightly different, but in tbe main it is agreed by all tbat bis feet were some distance, variously estimated from two to three feet, from a book case, tbat bis bead was towards tbe door, and bis body lying alongside of, witb bis right arm slightly under a table tbat stood between tbe bookcase and tbe door. Tbe deceased’s pistol, which usually stayed upon tbe bookcase, was found slightly under tbe bookcase from tbe deceased’s bead as it lay upon tbe floor, tbe distance to tbe pistol was in addition to tbe length of bis body, two or three feet to tbe bookcase.”

In addition, there was evidence tending to show tbat the intestate was a heavy drinker; tbat be bad been drinking for two days immediately preceding bis death; tbat be was a nervous, irritable, and high-tempered' man; tbat tbe wound on bis bead was black and ragged, and tbe hair scorched, indicating tbat tbe pistol was held in close proximity to bis bead at tbe time it was fired.

Upon tbis evidence we think bis Honor very properly submitted tbe issue to tbe jury, and tbat they were warranted in answering it in tbe affirmative.

We have carefully examined tbe record and plaintiff’s exceptions, and find no error of which plaintiff can justly complain.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 S.E. 842, 181 N.C. 478, 1921 N.C. LEXIS 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinsey-v-efferson-standard-life-insurance-nc-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack