{
  "id": 2217827,
  "name": "MATTIE H. MOORE v. LAFAYETTE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Moore v. Lafayette Life Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1927-04-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "538",
  "last_page": "539",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "193 N.C. 538"
    }
  ],
  "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": "167 N. C., 4",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271010
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/167/0004-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 N. C., 90",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651815
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/155/0090-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 N. C., 589",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630491
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/191/0589-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 N. C., 700",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626277
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/192/0700-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 198,
    "char_count": 2586,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.463,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0539700340193337e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5548221151117304
    },
    "sha256": "b5d345dce41b46b6f5f3c9170ced5b295bf1550f1a8c193f7398cc6644c3ae57",
    "simhash": "1:e9e2905726eb9799",
    "word_count": 453
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:08:43.639996+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MATTIE H. MOORE v. LAFAYETTE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.,\nafter stating tbe case: Tbe evidence offered by tbe plaintiff was sufficient to carry tbe case to tbe jury. It is true, tbe evidence is conflicting as to whether tbe premiums were or were not in arrears more than four weeks at tbe time of tbe. assured\u2019s death, but this did not warrant tbe withdrawal of tbe case from tbe jury. Myers v. Kirk, 192 N. C., 700; Smith v. Coach Line, 191 N. C., 589; Shell v. Roseman, 155 N. C., 90. If the plaintiff be entitled to recover under any view of tbe evidence, tbe motion for judgment as of nonsuit should be overruled. It is when \u2014 and only when \u2014 tbe plaintiff is not entitled to recover in any aspect of tbe case that such motion should be allowed. Christman v. Hilliard, 167 N. C., 4.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wallace & Wells for plaintiff.",
      "Benbow, Hall & Benbow for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MATTIE H. MOORE v. LAFAYETTE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.\n(Filed 13 April, 1927.)\nEvidence \u2014 Nonsuit\u2014Questions for Jury \u2014 Insurance, Life \u2014 Payment of Premiums.\nWhere there is a provision in a policy of- industrial insurance that the policy would be \u201cin benefit\u201d only upon the payment at a certain time weekly of a specified amount, and there is some evidence from which the jury may reasonably infer that this condition had been complied with by the insured, the issue should be answered by the jury, and a judgment as of nonsuit upon the evidence in the ease is erroneously entered.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Oglesby, J., at September Term, 1926, of Forsyth.\nCivil action to recover on a contract of insurance.\nOn 25 May, 1925, tbe defendant, in consideration of weekly premiums of twenty-five cents eacb, to be paid on every Monday thereafter, issued to James B. Moore a life insurance policy in tbe amount of $175, payable to plaintiff (wife of tbe assured) upon tbe death of tbe assured, provided said policy was then \u201cin benefit\u201d; that is, provided tbe premiums were fully paid, or \u201cin arrears not exceeding four weeks,\u201d at tbe time of tbe death of tbe assured. Otherwise, tbe policy, by its own terms, was to be null and void.\nTbe assured died 28 December, 1925. Plaintiff testified that tbe policy was in tbe possession of tbe assured and in benefit at tbe time of bis death. She further offered a receipt for premiums paid by tbe assured, purporting to bear date \u201c12-17-25\u201d (17 December, 1925). There was other evidence given by tbe defendant\u2019s agent tending to show that tbe last payment was made on 9 November, 1925.\nAt tbe close of plaintiff's evidence, on motion of defendant, judgment was entered as in case of nonsuit. Plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.\nWallace & Wells for plaintiff.\nBenbow, Hall & Benbow for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0538-01",
  "first_page_order": 616,
  "last_page_order": 617
}