{
  "id": 8625119,
  "name": "ROSE M. HEAD v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Head v. Prudential Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1936-05-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "203",
  "last_page": "204",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 N.C. 203"
    }
  ],
  "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": "115 S. E., 885",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 N. C., 5",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655145
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/185/0005-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 181,
    "char_count": 2288,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.461,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20724219829032503
    },
    "sha256": "d3cd97f01423e081c01255285339ebd0093c6a7a25e2c7f1d008809f018b8631",
    "simhash": "1:60c3f6a582a5051b",
    "word_count": 361
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:05.250790+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ROSE M. HEAD v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe trial court correctly interpreted the privilege, accorded plaintiff in the compromise settlement, to mean that the matter could be reopened upon actual, rather than presumptive, proof of death prior to 30 December, 1923. Lewis v. Lewis, 185 N. C., 5, 115 S. E., 885. Plaintiff\u2019s interpretation of the agreement would render the settlement meaningless.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "G. G. Barnhardt and Frazier \u25a0& Frazier for plaintiff.",
      "Brown & Troiier and Smith, Wharton & Hudgins for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ROSE M. HEAD v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY.\n(Filed 20 May, 1936.)\nCompromise and Settlement B t> \u2014 Compromise agreement held to preclude recovery hy plaintiff under facts of this case.\nAfter the absence of insured for over seven years without being heard from, the beneficiary, who had kept the policy in force by paying premiums, agreed with insurer to accept the cash surrender value of the policy with the privilege of reopening the case in the event the beneficiary could ever prove insured died prior to the lapsing of the contract. Held: The compromise agreement precludes the beneficiary from reopening the case except upon proof of actual rather than presumptive death.\nAppeal by plaintiff from P'less, J., at November Term, 1935, of Guileord.\nCivil action to recover on $4,000 policy of insurance issued by defendant 30 December, 1910, on life of Frank M. Head, and made payable to plaintiff as beneficiary.\nIn 1915 tke insured disappeared. The plaintiff paid the premiums until 30 December, 1923, when the policy lapsed,- provided the insured was then living. Plaintiff insisted the insured was presumably dead and demanded payment' of the policy. Defendant denied death of insured, but agreed to pay, in compromise settlement, the cash surrender value of the policy, $1,341.35, with privilege to plaintiff \u201cof reopening the case in the event you can ever prove death occurred prior to the lapsing of the contract.\u201d This offer was accepted 30 April, 1925.\nIn 1934, the plaintiff attempted to reopen the matter and instituted this action, but offered only the presumptive evidence of death, which existed at the time of the compromise settlement.\nFrom directed verdict and judgment for defendant, accordant with terms of compromise settlement, the plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.\nG. G. Barnhardt and Frazier \u25a0& Frazier for plaintiff.\nBrown & Troiier and Smith, Wharton & Hudgins for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0203-01",
  "first_page_order": 269,
  "last_page_order": 270
}