{ "id": 8608973, "name": "WILMA E. FERRELL v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Ferrell v. Metropolitan Life Insurance", "decision_date": "1935-09-18", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "420", "last_page": "421", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "208 N.C. 420" } ], "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": "185 N. C., 162", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655695 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/185/0162-01" ] }, { "cite": "196 N. C., 14", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622923 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/196/0014-01" ] }, { "cite": "207 N. C., 51", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622430 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/207/0051-01" ] }, { "cite": "207 N. C., 82", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622573 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/207/0082-01" ] }, { "cite": "207 N. C., 487", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626725 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/207/0487-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 N. C., 142", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655549 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/185/0142-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 233, "char_count": 3394, "ocr_confidence": 0.469, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.7248109550893897e-07, "percentile": 0.704480840388764 }, "sha256": "6427fe84939f70325bebb72e75e8150da7b5e376aacaf719c2f5787eed59daa3", "simhash": "1:f8b761925a71c038", "word_count": 600 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:32.811961+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "WILMA E. FERRELL v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OlaeKsoN, J.\nAt tbe close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, tbe defendant did not make a motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit. C. S., 567. Tbe record discloses \u201cat tbe conclusion of all tbe testimony tbe Court, of its own volition, ordered that judgment of nonsuit be entered.\u201d\nIn Nowell v. Basnight, 185 N. C., 142 (147), \u201cThe following may be considered as fairly interpretative of C. S., 567 . . . Time of making motion \u2014 It must be made first at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence and before defendant introduces any evidence.\u201d By the failure of defendant to follow strictly 0. S., 567, the question of the insufficiency of evidence is waived. Harrison v. Ins. Co., 207 N. C., 487 (490).\nA nonsuit and dismissal under the Hinsdale Act has the same legal effect as a directed verdict, and where, in an action on a note, there is no evidence in contradiction of defendant\u2019s evidence constituting a complete defense to the action, a judgment as of nonsuit will not be held for error, since the evidence would support a directed verdict in defendant\u2019s favor, the court not weighing the evidence, but taking it to be true. Hood, Comr. of Banks, v. Bayless, 207 N. C., 82.\nOn the former appeal, 207 N. C., 51 (51-2), this Court said: \u201cThe plaintiff made out a prima facie case. The defendant offered evidence tending to show that the policy in suit lapsed for nonpayment of semiannual premium due 26 October, 1932. The credibility of defendant\u2019s defense was challenged by plaintiff\u2019s denial of assured\u2019s signature to the written acknowledgement. This made it a case for the jury.\u201d\nIn Power Co. v. Yount and Robinette v. Yount, ante, 182 (184), it is written: \u201c \u2018A decision by the Supreme Oourt on a prior appeal constitutes the law of the case, both in subsequent proceedings in the trial court and on a subsequent appeal.\u2019 Newbern v. Telegraph Co., 196 N. C., 14; Nobles v. Davenport, 185 N. C., 162.\u201d\nWe do not set forth the evidence as the case is to be heard again. As stated in the former opinion, \u201cThis made it a case for the jury.\u201d\nThe judgment of the court below is\nEeversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "OlaeKsoN, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "O. B. Morris and John H. Hall for plaintiff.", "Worth & Horner for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "WILMA E. FERRELL v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.\n(Filed 18 September, 1935.)\n1. Trial I> a\u2014\nA motion as of nonsuit must be made at tbe close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, and, if overruled, at tbe conclusion of all tbe evidence, or question of tbe sufficiency of tbe evidence will be deemed waived. C. S., 567.\n3. Same\u2014\nA judgment as of nonsuit entered by tbe trial court of its own motion will not be beld for error when tbe evidence would justify a directed vei*-dict, a nonsuit and a directed verdict having tbe same legal effect.\n3. Appeal and Error La: 1 d \u2014 Decision on former appeal constitutes the law of the case upon subsequent hearing and appeal.\nWhere it is determined on appeal that tbe evidence warranted tbe submission of tbe case to tbe jury, and tbe case is remanded, upon a subsequent bearing upon substantially tbe same evidence, tbe refusal of tbe trial court to submit tbe case to tbe jury is error, tbe former decision constituting tbe law of tbe case both in subsequent proceedings in the trial court and on a subsequent appeal.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Granmer, J., at March Term, 1935, of Currituck.\nReversed.\nThis is an action by plaintiff to recover of defendant tbe sum of $2,000.00 on a life insurance policy.\nO. B. Morris and John H. Hall for plaintiff.\nWorth & Horner for defendant." }, "file_name": "0420-01", "first_page_order": 486, "last_page_order": 487 }