{
  "id": 8654633,
  "name": "WILLIAM FOX, Administrator of WILLIAM ADIE ENGLISH v. VOLUNTEER STATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fox v. Volunteer State Life Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1923-12-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "763",
  "last_page": "764",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "186 N.C. 763"
    }
  ],
  "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": "88 N. C., 573",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683368
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/88/0573-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 N. C., 448",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661516
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/127/0448-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 N. C., 151",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651648
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/140/0151-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 N. C., 187",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269690
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/184/0187-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 N. C., 121",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655501
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/185/0121-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 224,
    "char_count": 2896,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.468,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.78078655242355e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3608563665294772
    },
    "sha256": "2859097a58ac9fb2a16a558d0e1abf87832c3befac85356a81fd22ec24f65f7c",
    "simhash": "1:07310c50548291ac",
    "word_count": 503
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:30.005509+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Stacy, I., dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "WILLIAM FOX, Administrator of WILLIAM ADIE ENGLISH v. VOLUNTEER STATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Oubiam.\nCivil action. Tbe case was brought to this Court at a former term, on appeal from a judgment of nonsuit (185 N. C., 121), and a new trial was awarded tbe plaintiff. It was admitted tbat tbe application (parts 1 and 2) and tbe policy, wben issued, should constitute tbe entire contract between tbe parties, and tbat tbe policy should not take effect until it was issued and delivered and tbe premium paid; but tbe Court held tbat tbe jury should be allowed to pass upon tbe defendant\u2019s alleged negligent failure to deliver tbe policy in due time. Tbe case was again taken up at tbe May Term, 1923, and was tried in substantial accordance with tbe opinion of tbe Court. There was disagreement between tbe parties as to tbe meaning of tbe first issue, but tbe crucial question was whether tbe defendant negligently delayed tbe delivery of tbe policy after it went into tbe bands of tbe local agent wben tbe plaintiff\u2019s intestate was in good health, and was ready, able, and willing to pay tbe premium, and tbe question, which practically included three issues, was answered by tbe jury in favor of tbe plaintiff.\nTbe defendant\u2019s exceptions to evidence of statements made by its agent are untenable. Tbe statements qualified or explained tbe conduct of tbe agent at a time wben be was engaged in doing tbe work and performing tbe duties required of him and were not a mere narration of what bad previously occurred. Berry v. Cedar Worles, 184 N. C., 187; Hamrick v. Telegraph Co., 140 N. C., 151; Darlington v. Telegraph Co., 127 N. C., 448; Branch v. R. R., 88 N. C., 573. Nor can we sustain tbe other exceptions to tbe admission of evidence. Tbe motion for nonsuit seems to have been based on tbe agreement tbat tbe policy should not take effect until it was delivered and tbe premium was paid, but this question was disposed of in tbe former appeal. We find\nNo error.\nStacy, I., dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Oubiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Marie W. Brown for plaintiff.",
      "Martin, Rollins & Wright, and Pou, Bailey & Pou for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WILLIAM FOX, Administrator of WILLIAM ADIE ENGLISH v. VOLUNTEER STATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.\n(Filed 20 December, 1923.)\n1. Insurance \u2014 Life\u2014Principal and Agent \u2014 Local Agent \u2014 Negligence\u2014 Policies \u2014 Pr emiums.\nHeld, this case was tried in accordance with the decision in the former appeal on the question as to whether the negligence of the defendant\u2019s local agent was the cause of the first premium not being paid, it being the condition upon which the company\u2019s liability thereon was made to depend.\n3. Same \u2014 Evidence\u2014Appeal and Error.\nIn this case held, the evidence of statements made by the agent of the defendant life insurance company\u2019s local agent for the delivery of the policy as to his acts and conduct therein related to the question of his negligence at that time and was competent upon the trial.\nStacy, X, dissenting.\nAppeal by defendant from Bryson, J., at May Term, 1923, of MADISON.\nMarie W. Brown for plaintiff.\nMartin, Rollins & Wright, and Pou, Bailey & Pou for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0763-01",
  "first_page_order": 827,
  "last_page_order": 828
}