Seay v. American Savings Life Insurance

197 S.E. 151, 213 N.C. 660, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 172
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMay 25, 1938
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 197 S.E. 151 (Seay v. American Savings 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
Seay v. American Savings Life Insurance, 197 S.E. 151, 213 N.C. 660, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 172 (N.C. 1938).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In tbe case of Seay v. Ins. Co., 208 N. C., 832, is tbe following: “Civil action to recover agent’s commissions on insurance premium renewals, ‘paid to and accepted by tbe (defendant) company, while this (agency) contract is in force . . . limit 9 years.’ Tbe defendant sought to terminate its agency contract with tbe plaintiff, prior to tbe expiration of tbe ninth renewal of some of tbe policies written by plaintiff. This suit is to recover commissions on such renewals up to tbe 9th on each policy. Judgment of nonsuit was entered in tbe municipal court of tbe city of Higb Point, which was reversed on appeal to tbe Superior Court of Guilford County. From tbe ruling of tbe Superior Court tbe defendant appeals, assigning error. (Per Curiam) : Tbe Court being evenly divided in opinion, Glarhson, J., not sitting, tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court is affirmed and stands, according to tbe uniform practice of appellate courts, as tbe decision in this case, without becoming a precedent,” citing many authorities.

This action is being prosecuted by tbe same plaintiff, against tbe successor of tbe same defendant, for recovery under tbe same contract as tbat considered in tbe former action. Tbe plaintiff pleads res judi-cata. Tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court in tbe former action, unchanged on appeal, is determinative of tbe plaintiff’s right to recover under tbe contract in this action, and hence tbe judgment of nonsuit is reversed.

We think what was said in tbe above case is applicable to tbe present action, and tbe judgment of tbe court below is

Reversed.

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

Related

State v. PUBLIC STAFF-NC UTIL. COM'N
370 S.E.2d 567 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1988)
Airport Authority v. . Johnson
36 S.E.2d 803 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1946)
Greensboro-High Point Airport Authority v. Johnson
226 N.C. 1 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1946)
Whitehead v. City of Charlotte
20 S.E.2d 57 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)
Brantley v. . R. R.
198 S.E. 599 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Brantley v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
214 N.C. 817 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Powell v. . Veasey
197 S.E. 622 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
197 S.E. 151, 213 N.C. 660, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seay-v-american-savings-life-insurance-nc-1938.