Williams v. Fireman's Fund Insurance

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Williams v. Fireman's Fund Insurance

114 S.E. 161, 184 N.C. 268, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 69

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 1, 1922

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 114 S.E. 161 (Williams v. Fireman's Fund 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

Williams v. Fireman's Fund Insurance, 114 S.E. 161, 184 N.C. 268, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 69 (N.C. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Hoice, J.

Tbe facts in evidence tended to show that on 24 April, 1920, plaintiff bad an open dealer’s policy of insurance on automobiles held by him for sale, covering risks of loss by fire and lightning to an amount not to exceed $5,000, and at said date, covering tbe machine in question here and its value. That on 9 May, 1920, said machine was stolen from plaintiff’s garage in Fayetteville, N. C., and on 23 June, forty-six days thereafter, tbe charred remains of tbe automobile were found near Greenville, S. C., possession of same never having been recovered by plaintiff, tbe true owner.

From a perusal of this policy it applies, and is intended to apply, to machines properly designated and held by tbe insured for sale in bis business at tbe time, and in section 5 of tbe policy, provision is made as follows: “This insurance, subject to tbe conditions and limitations of tbe policy of which this form is a part, covers such automobiles from tbe time they become tbe property of tbe assured, and continues (unless canceled) until said property is delivered to tbe purchaser, or until same otherwise passes out of tbe possession of tbe assured, this period in no event-to exceed twelve months, or to extend beyond tbe termination of tbe policy.”

It thus appears that by the express stipulation of tbe contract tbe policy extends its protection to machines only while in possession of tbe insured, or some of bis employees or agents having control of same in tbe prosecution of bis business, and on tbe facts presented in this record, tbe machine could in no sense be considered as coming within tbe descriptive terms of tbe policy. An essential feature of tbe crime of larceny is a felonious transfer of possession, and both tbe language of the contract and provision, and the nature of tbe risk forbids that any recovery can be bad for this loss.

The cases of Lummus v. Ins. Co., 167 N. C., 654, and Lancaster v. Ins. Co., 153 N. C., 285, and others, are in general approval of bis Honor’s judgment directing a nonsuit, and same is

Affirmed.'

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

Hoice, J.

Tbe facts in evidence tended to show that on 24 April, 1920, plaintiff bad an open dealer’s policy of insurance on automobiles held by him for sale, covering risks of loss by fire and lightning to an amount not to exceed $5,000, and at said date, covering tbe machine in question here and its value. That on 9 May, 1920, said machine was stolen from plaintiff’s garage in Fayetteville, N. C., and on 23 June, forty-six days thereafter, tbe charred remains of tbe automobile were found near Greenville, S. C., possession of same never having been recovered by plaintiff, tbe true owner.

From a perusal of this policy it applies, and is intended to apply, to machines properly designated and held by tbe insured for sale in bis business at tbe time, and in section 5 of tbe policy, provision is made as follows: “This insurance, subject to tbe conditions and limitations of tbe policy of which this form is a part, covers such automobiles from tbe time they become tbe property of tbe assured, and continues (unless canceled) until said property is delivered to tbe purchaser, or until same otherwise passes out of tbe possession of tbe assured, this period in no event-to exceed twelve months, or to extend beyond tbe termination of tbe policy.”

It thus appears that by the express stipulation of tbe contract tbe policy extends its protection to machines only while in possession of tbe insured, or some of bis employees or agents having control of same in tbe prosecution of bis business, and on tbe facts presented in this record, tbe machine could in no sense be considered as coming within tbe descriptive terms of tbe policy. An essential feature of tbe crime of larceny is a felonious transfer of possession, and both tbe language of the contract and provision, and the nature of tbe risk forbids that any recovery can be bad for this loss.

The cases of Lummus v. Ins. Co., 167 N. C., 654, and Lancaster v. Ins. Co., 153 N. C., 285, and others, are in general approval of bis Honor’s judgment directing a nonsuit, and same is

Affirmed.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 S.E. 161, 184 N.C. 268, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-firemans-fund-insurance-nc-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack