Ross v. New York Life Insurance

32 S.E. 733, 124 N.C. 395
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedApril 11, 1899
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 32 S.E. 733 (Ross v. New York 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
Ross v. New York Life Insurance, 32 S.E. 733, 124 N.C. 395 (N.C. 1899).

Opinion

Faiecloth, C. J.

Plaintiff’s intestate on September 27, 1895, made application for life insurance witb defendant’s agent and gave bis note for tbe first payment. Tbe application and note, wbicb was accepted as cash, were forwarded to tbe borne office. Tbe application contained tbis statement : “That tbe company shall incur no liability under tbis application until it has been received, approved, tbe policy issued thereon by tbe company at the borne office, and tbe premium has been actually paid to” and accepted by tbe com- *396 pairy or its authorized agent during my life time and good health.” Plaintiff’s intestate became sick with fever in November and died on December 15, 1895. The application was not accepted, no policy issued, nor was the first payment made. Onnext «T anuary the defendant tendered the note to plaintiff, who refused to receive it, and after its maturity demanded the payment of the policy. When plaintiff rested, his Honor on motion held that plaintiff could not recover and ordered a nonsuit. There was no error as the facts did not show a contract and as the facts were undisputed there was nothing for the jury. The minds of the intestate and defendant never met. Ormond v. Ins. Co., 96 N. C., 158; Whitley v. Ins. Co., 71 N. C., 480. Even long delay by the defendant could not presume an acceptance. The natural and legal inference is to the contrary. Moore v. Ins. Co., 130 N. Y., 531. The student may read on this question Jacobs v. Ins. Co., 71 Miss., 656-8; Paine v. Ins. Co., 51 Fed Rep., 591; Eliason v. Hinshaw, 4 Wheat., 227; Carr v. Duval, 14 Peters, 81; Steinle v. Ins. Co., 81 Fed. Rep., 489, and McCully’s Admr. v. Ins. Co., 18 W. Va., 782.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Wright v. Pilot Life Insurance
254 F. Supp. 1018 (W.D. Virginia, 1966)
Bryant v. Occidental Life Insurance Co.
117 S.E.2d 435 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)
Hayes v. Durham Life Insurance Company
96 S.E.2d 109 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1957)
Pruitt v. Great American Insurance Company
86 S.E.2d 401 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1955)
Gilmore v. Durham Life Insurance
171 S.E. 57 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
Rocky Mount Savings & Trust Co. v. Ætna Life Insurance
160 S.E. 831 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)
Metropolitan, Etc., Ins. Co. v. Brady
174 N.E. 99 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1930)
Turlington v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
137 S.E. 422 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1927)
Stanton v. Equitable Life Assurance Society
135 S.E. 367 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1926)
McCain v. Hartford Live Stock Insurance
130 S.E. 186 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Fox v. Volunteer State Life Insurance
185 N.C. 121 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)
Live Stock Insurance v. Stickler
115 N.E. 691 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 S.E. 733, 124 N.C. 395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-new-york-life-insurance-nc-1899.