Rouse v. Old Colony Insurance
166 S.E. 177, 203 N.C. 345, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 394
Opinion
The decisions of this Court are to the effect that the contractual limitation of twelve months in which to bring suit, inserted in a fire insurance policy by virtue of C. S., 6437, is valid and binding. Holly v. London Assurance Co., 170 N. C., 4, 86 S. E., 694; Tatham v. Insurance Co., 181 N. C., 434, 107 S. E., 450.
The cause of action is laid upon the policy, and it is manifest that the suit cannot be maintained.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Rouse v. Old Colony Insurance, 166 S.E. 177, 203 N.C. 345, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 394 (N.C. 1932).
166 S.E. 177 (Rouse v. Old Colony Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Gaskins v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company
131 S.E.2d 872 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1963)
Bollinger v. National Fire Insurance
154 P.2d 399 (California Supreme Court, 1944)
Holderness v. Hamilton Fire Ins. Co. of New York
54 F. Supp. 145 (S.D. Florida, 1944)