{
  "id": 8629135,
  "name": "ETTA EVANS v. IMPERIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Evans v. Imperial Life Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1938-05-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "539",
  "last_page": "540",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "213 N.C. 539"
    }
  ],
  "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": "100 N. C., 212",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650331
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/100/0212-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 N. C., 712",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629050
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/196/0712-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 N. C., 125",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627949
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/191/0125-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 N. C., 103",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659145
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "105"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/131/0103-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 N. C., 604",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660289
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/123/0604-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 204,
    "char_count": 2866,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4975956836136062e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6649710079622403
    },
    "sha256": "d26b16ed4e54bc01c3bad221e8167d60e8918a236cfb1c47f7ccea617d2c7eba",
    "simhash": "1:1665718032ce2c03",
    "word_count": 521
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:08:52.368812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Seawell, J., took no part in tbe consideration or decision of tbis case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ETTA EVANS v. IMPERIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis is an action instituted by tbe beneficiary upon a policy of insurance, issued by tbe defendant upon tbe life of Lina Evans (Hamm), wherein was provided that \u201cshould death of the insured be caused by . . . disease of heart within one year from date of this policy . . . the liability of the company is limited to the amount of premium paid to and received by the company, and no more.\u201d The insured died within one year from the issuance of the policy.\nThe sole question for determination by the jury was whether the death of the insured was caused by a disease of the heart, which was submitted under an appropriate issue and was answered in the negative. From a judgment predicated upon the verdict the defendant appealed.\nEvidence was introduced by both plaintiff and defendant in which there was little conflict of facts, but some conflict in expert opinions based upon the facts.\nThe assignments of error are (1) that the court erred in denying motion to set the verdict aside as a matter of law, upon the ground that all the evidence, taken in its most favorable light to the plaintiff, fails to substantiate the verdict of the jury, (2) that the court erred in overruling motion for new trial, and (3) the court erred in signing the judgment.\n\u201c. . . a familiar principle of practice forbids a directed instruction in favor of tbe party upon wbom rests tbe burden of proof. Cox v. R. R., 123 N. C., 604; House v. R. R., 131 N. C., 103, 105.\u201d Yarn Mills v. Armstrong, 191 N. C., 125. A motion to set aside a verdict as being against tbe weight of tbe evidence is addressed to tbe discretion of tbe court and is not reviewable. Hardison v. Jones, 196 N. C., 712. Tbe granting of a new trial because tbe verdict is contrary to tbe evidence is in tbe discretion of tbe trial court. Redmond v. Stepp, 100 N. C., 212 (220). Tbe judgment is supported by tbe verdict.\nIn tbe record we find\nNo error.\nSeawell, J., took no part in tbe consideration or decision of tbis case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Pou & Emanuel for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Thomas W. Ruffin for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ETTA EVANS v. IMPERIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.\n(Filed 4 May, 1938.)\n1. Trial \u00a7 49: Appeal and Error \u00a7 37b\u2014\nA motion to set aside a verdict as being against tbe weight of tbe evidence is addressed to tbe discretion of tbe trial court and is not reviewable, and an exception on the ground that the refusal of tbe motion was error as a matter of law is untenable.\n2. Same\u2014\nA motion for a new trial on the ground that tbe verdict is contrary to the evidence is in tbe discretion of the trial court.\n3. Appeal and Error \u00a7 40a\u2014\nAn assignment of error to the signing of the judgment cannot be sustained when the judgment is supported by the verdict.\nSea well, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal by defendant from Sinclair, J., at January Term, 1938, of Wake. No error.\nPou & Emanuel for plaintiff, appellee.\nThomas W. Ruffin for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0539-01",
  "first_page_order": 603,
  "last_page_order": 604
}