{
  "id": 11272438,
  "name": "SAVANNAH SEXTON, Administratrix, v. GREENSBORO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sexton v. Greensboro Life Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1912-12-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "597",
  "last_page": "600",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "160 N.C. 597"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "100 Mass., 500",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "case_ids": [
        2141825
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/100/0500-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 N. C., 11",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2083623
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/68/0011-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 N. C., 142",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656572
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/157/0142-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 370,
    "char_count": 8250,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.453,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6260351752167416e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6881045960594614
    },
    "sha256": "4d97c2c54caab45b2eb11611ad3528cb78193842268b9452756601af90ea64da",
    "simhash": "1:2141454daacb1563",
    "word_count": 1441
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:32:58.976002+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SAVANNAH SEXTON, Administratrix, v. GREENSBORO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OlaRK, C. J.\nTbis is an action upon a life insurance policy, and was before tbis Court, 157 N. C., 142. In that ease, Brown, J., says: \u201cTbe controversy is over tbe payment of tbe premium due 1 August, 1909, of $34.57. If that was paid, tbe plaintiff is entitled to recover. If it was not paid, or payment waived, plaintiff is not entitled to recover.\u201d\nOn 13 September, 1909, tbe intestate paid cash $16.40 and gave a note due 1 November, for $18.17, which was never paid. After tbe death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate tbis note was in tbe possession of tbe defendant. It expressed on tbe face of it tbe agreement that if tbe note was not paid at maturity, tbe policy was void. At tbe former trial, upon notice, tbe defendant produced in court tbis note and tbe attached receipt for premium due 1 August, 1909, and they were put in evidence by tbe plaintiff. On appeal, tbe Court held that this was error. On tbis trial said note and tbe attached receipt were put in evidence by tbe defendant. Tbe plaintiff contends that as it was held error on tbe former appeal for her to put tbe note and receipt in evidence, it must be error now for defendant to put them in evidence. Tbis by no means follows. On tbe former trial they were put in evidence by tbe plaintiff as proof of payment of tbe premium. Tbis Court said: \u201cHad tbe receipt been in tbe plaintiff\u2019s possession, it would be very strong evidence of payment; but as it was in defendant\u2019s possession and bad never been delivered, it was no evidence of payment, and tbe introduction of it as evidence by the plaintiff under tbe circumstances was inadmissible.\u201d On tins trial tbe note and receipt were introduced by tbe defendant for tbe opposite purpose. On bebalf of defendant tbey were competent as corroborative of tbe proof tbat tbey bad never left the defendant\u2019s possession and tending to sbow tbat there bad been neither payment nor waiver of tbe payment of tbe premium in question.\nTbe only other assignment of error is to tbe nonsuit directed in this ease. We have stated above tbe substance of tbe controversy as set out by Brown, J., in tbe opinion in tbat case. Upon tbat opinion, it was clear tbat on tbe evidence then before tbe Court tbe plaintiff was not entitled to recover.\nIn the opinion in the former case it was said: \u201cThere is no evidence that the defendant accepted the note as a payment for the premium. It is merely an extension of the time of payment. In express terms the note on its face declares the policies void if the note is not paid when due. This note is similar to the language construed in Ferebee v. Insurance Co., 68 N. C., 11.\u201d In 3 Cooley Ins., 2269, and cases cited, and Pitt v. Insurance Co., 100 Mass., 500, it is said tbat when a policy or a note contains \u201ca stipulation to this effect, a failure to pay at maturity a note given for a premium will work a forfeiture of insurance.\u201d On this trial, there was no new testimony adduced tending to sbow payment of premium.\nTbe plaintiff contends tbat as it puts tbe policy in evidence with proof of tbe death of tbe assured and tbe letter of 14 September, 1909, from tbe company to tbe deceased, which stated tbat it bad received tbe remittance in settlement of tbe policy, tbat this made out a prima, facie case, and tbat tbe words in tbe letter, \u201cTour official receipt has been attached to your note,\u201d called for explanation by evidence from tbe defendant, and, therefore, tbe case should have gone to tbe jury. Tbe court - refused to grant a nonsuit at close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence. Tbe defendant put in evidence tbe following letter, which it obtained from tbe plaintiff upon due notice to produce tbe same, dated 30 November, 1909: \u201cYour note of $18.17 and interest, total $18.55, has been returned to us by tbe bank, marked \u2018No attention.\u2019 In order to keep Policy No. 724 in force, it will be necessary for you to let us have check for above amount by return mail, together with the inclosed informal health certificate for the approval of the medical department.\u201d This was written evidence showing that the premium note had not been paid, and that whatever might have been the effect, as a waiver, of presenting the note for payment, the action of defendant on that date negatived any waiver after that date, unless the deceased should make payment. There was no evidence contradictory of this, and the court properly sustained a motion to nonsuit, for upon the evidence, taken in the most favorable aspect, the plaintiff could not recover.\nIt is true, the plaintiff claims that under the automatic extension feature of the policy, there having been payment of three annual premiums, the plaintiff was entitled to an extension to the amount marked on the policy. The policy, which was in evidence, provided that the \u201cnonforfeiture value on the margin of this page shows the several guaranteed values of this policy corresponding to the number of years for which annual premiums have been paid, and in the event >of any indebtedness against this policy these values will be reduced proportionately.\u201d This table shows that where three annual premiums had been paid, as in this case, the loan value was $60, which would have entitled the insured to three years and one month\u2019s extension. But it appeared in the evidence of the plaintiff that the insured had borrowed said $60 from the company, which was unpaid, and therefore, upon the plaintiff\u2019s evidence, the insured was entitled to no extension.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "OlaRK, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. E. Baper and McCrary & McCrary for plaintiff.",
      "Wctlser & Walser, T. 8. Beall, and King & Kimball for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SAVANNAH SEXTON, Administratrix, v. GREENSBORO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.\n(Filed 4 December, 1912.)\n1. Insurance, Life \u2014 Premium Notes \u2014 Maturity\u2014Possession of Insurer \u2014 Nonpayment\u2014Evidence.\nIn an action to recover upon a life insurance policy, the defendant produced, in its possession, and put in evidence a promissory note, past maturity, signed by the deceased insured, which expressed upon its face that if it was not paid at maturity the policy was void: Held, competent, as tending to corroborate the evidence of the defendant that the note had not left its possession, and tending to show that payment had not been made by the deceased, and that the defendant had not waived the payment.\n2. Insurance, Life \u2014 Premium Notes \u2014 Renewals\u2014Nonpayment\u2014Evidence.\nA premium note given for the policy sued on in this case, in the possession of the defendant after maturity, and containing the provision that the policy would be void in the event the note was not paid, is Held to be a renewal of a note of like character, formerly given, and not a payment thereof, and, without more, no evidence that the premium had been paid so as to keep the policy in force.\n3. Same \u2014 Waiver\u2014Nonsuit.\nIn an action to recover upon a policy of life insurance, the plaintiff put the policy and proof of death in evidence with a letter from the defendant that it had received the remittance in settlement of the policy, and stating, \u201cYour official receipt has been attached to your note.\u201d The defendant put in evidence a letter it obtained from the plaintiff, upon due notice to produce, to the effect that the note had been returned unpaid from the bank, marked \u201cNo attention,\u201d \u2022 and to keep the policy in force the plaintiff must send remittance by return mail with inclosed formal health certificate, etc.: Held, the evidence showed that the premium note had not been paid, and whatever may have been the effect, as a waiver, of presenting the note for payment, the .failure of the plaintiff .to pay negatived it after that date, and, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a judgment of nonsuit was proper.\n4. Insurance, Life \u2014 Policy\u2014Loan Value \u2014 Extended insurance.\nUpon the maturity of a policy of insurance with provision as to a loan value and the extension of the insurance after several yearly premiums have been paid, tbe administrator of the deceased may not claim tbe extension, when tbe loan value, which carries tbe insurance, has been made available by the deceased by borrowing tbe full amount.\nAppeal by plaintiff from O. H. Allen, J., at April Term, 1912, of DavidsoN.\nTbe facts are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion of tbe Court by Mr. Chief Justice Ciarle.\nE. E. Baper and McCrary & McCrary for plaintiff.\nWctlser & Walser, T. 8. Beall, and King & Kimball for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0597-01",
  "first_page_order": 637,
  "last_page_order": 640
}