Orren v. Iowa Mutual Liability Insurance
54 S.E.2d 927, 230 N.C. 618, 1949 N.C. LEXIS 395
Opinion
Tbe determinate question at issue herein is as to whether tbe diamond ring was possessed by plaintiff or a member of bis family for personal use or as a business asset held for sale. If a business .asset, its loss by tbeft was not insured. Tbe findings and conclusion of tbe judge in respect thereto were adverse to plaintiff. They are fully .sustained by tbe record. Hence tbe judgment entered must be
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Orren v. Iowa Mutual Liability Insurance, 54 S.E.2d 927, 230 N.C. 618, 1949 N.C. LEXIS 395 (N.C. 1949).
54 S.E.2d 927 (Orren v. Iowa Mutual Liability Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co v. Quirt
346 A.2d 497 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1975)
American Motorists Insurance v. Vermont
155 S.E.2d 675 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)