#### WILMA E. FERRELL v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

(Filed 19 September, 1934.)

Trial D b: Insurance P d — Evidence on issue of payment of premium held conflicting, and directed verdict in insurer’s favor was error.

Where tbe right of plaintiff to recover upon a policy of life insurance in which she is named beneficiary is made to depend solely upon whether a premium thereon had been paid, and plaintiff introduces insurer’s receipt therefor, but insurer introduces evidence that the insured’s check given in payment was worthless and was returned to insured upon his written acknowledgment that the receipt had been lost, and plaintiff testifies that the purported signature of insured to the acknowledgment was not genuine: Held, the evidence as to payment was conflicting and raised an issue for the jury, and the direction of a verdict in insurer’s favor was error.

Appeal by plaintiff from Devin, J., at May Term, 1934, of Cur-RITUCIC.

Civil action to recover on a $2,000 policy of life insurance.

Upon tbe bearing tbe issuance of tbe policy in suit upon tbe life of plaintiff’s busband, she being named as beneficiary therein, tbe payment of the first semiannual premium on 26 April, 1932, and tbe death of tbe insured on 5 February, 1933, were all admitted. Thereupon, tbe plaintiff offered in evidence an official receipt for tbe semiannual premium due 26 October, 1932, found by her after her husband’s death, and rested. Tbe genuineness of the signature on this receipt was not questioned.

In answer, tbe defendant offered evidence tending to show that tbe semiannual receipt of 26 October, 1932, was issued upon tender of a check which proved to be worthless; that said check was returned to the-assured 18 January, 1933, upon written acknowledgment by him that tbe official semiannual receipt of 26 October, 1932, bad been lost.

In rebuttal, tbe plaintiff testified that tbe purported signature of her busband to said acknowledgment was not genuine.

Tbe court directed a verdict for tbe defendant, and from tbe judgment entered thereon tbe plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.

G. B. Morris and JoJm II. Hall for plaintiff.

Worth & Horner for defendant.

Stacy, C. J.

Tbe plaintiff made out a prima facie case. Tbe defendant offered evidence tending to show that tbe policy in suit lapsed *52for nonpayment of semiannual premium clue 26 October, 1932. The credibility of defendant’s defense was challenged by plaintiff’s denial of assured’s signature to the written acknowledgment. This made it a case for the jury.

There was error in directing the verdict.

New trial.