{
  "id": 8631557,
  "name": "GROVER MANHEIM, by His Next Friend, L. W. MANHEIM, v. VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, INC., and R. H. GARLAND and W. C. HONEYCUTT",
  "name_abbreviation": "Manheim ex rel. Manheim v. Virginia Surety Co.",
  "decision_date": "1939-05-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "693",
  "last_page": "696",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "215 N.C. 693"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 345,
    "char_count": 7778,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.455,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.4033266686372354e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3378675745188233
    },
    "sha256": "23384912d3c9d53021af9e4e4d6bbf8a708ae2d296100514830fe3a7b9ea92e6",
    "simhash": "1:f8caa6a440e74e37",
    "word_count": 1297
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.554902+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "GROVER MANHEIM, by His Next Friend, L. W. MANHEIM, v. VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, INC., and R. H. GARLAND and W. C. HONEYCUTT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ScheNCk, J.\nTliis is an action upon a policy of liability insurance issued by tbe Virginia Surety Company and an indemnity bond wbereon R. II. Garland and ~W. 0. Honeycutt are guarantors, beld by tbe city of Greensboro, guaranteeing tbe payment of judgments obtained against tbe Bluebird Transportation Corporation by reason of tbe operations of taxicabs in said city.\nTbe policy of liability insurance was issued by tbe corporate defendant on 20 May, 1937, was canceled as of 12:01 o\u2019clock a.m., 24 November, 1937, and was in tbe sum of $2,500.\nThe bond, upon which tbe defendants Garland and Honeycutt were guarantors, became effective at 12:01 o\u2019clock a.m., 24 November, 1937, and was of a continuing nature, and was in tbe sum of $10,000.\nTbe plaintiff, Grover Manbeim, received personal injuries due to tbe negligent operation of a taxicab of tbe Bluebird Transportation Corporation in the- city of Greensboro on 19 June, 1937, and instituted suit to recover damages for said injuries against said transportation corporation on 17 September, 1937, and procured final judgment therefor in the sum of $8,500 at the March Term, 1938, of Guilford County Superior Court, and on 25 May, 1938, caused an execution to issue against said transportation corporation, which was returned unsatisfied.\nThis action was instituted while appeal from tbe judgment procured at tbe March Term, 1938, was pending, and came on for bearing at tbe February Term, 1939, after said judgment bad been affirmed, when tbe trial judge instructed tbe jury that if they found tbe facts to be as shown by all of tbe evidence to answer tbe issue as to tbe indebtedness of tbe defendant surety company to the plaintiff in the sum of $2,500, and the issue as to the indebtedness of the defendants Garland and Honeycutt to the plaintiff, \u201cNothing.\u201d\nThe jury returned a verdict accordant with the court\u2019s instruction, and from judgment predicated on the verdict the plaintiff appealed, assigning error.\nThe assignments of error relied upon by the plaintiff are to the court\u2019s instructing the jury that if they found the facts to be as shown by all the evidence to answer the issue as to the indebtedness of the individual defendants, \u201cNothing,\u201d and to the refusal of the court to give instructions, asked in apt time, to the effect that if they found the facts to be as shown by all the evidence, to answer the issue as to the individual defendants\u2019 indebtedness, \u201c$6,000.\u201d\nIt will be noted that the accident which caused the injury for which the plaintiff received judgment against the Bluebird Transportation Corporation occurred on 19 June, 1937, that suit was instituted to recover damages caused thereby on 17 September, 1937, and judgment obtained in March, 1938, while the bond in suit, upon which the defendants Garland and Honeycutt were guarantors, was not executed and delivered until 23 November, 1937. It is contended by the appellant that since the judgment was obtained subsequent to the delivery of the bond the judgment is covered by the bond. It is the contention of the appellees Garland and Honeycutt that since the accident occurred prior to the delivery of the bond, the judgment is not covered thereby.\nIn the portion of the bond relied upon by the appellant the guarantors agree within thirty days after the rendition thereof, \u201cTo pay any final judgment that may be taken against said Bluebird Transportation Corporation of Greensboro, North Carolina, for any personal injury or property damage for which the said Bluebird Transportation Corporation may be held liable at the instance of all persons; . . .\u201d\nThe bond in suit was filed in compliance with O. S., 2787 (36) and the ordinance of the city of Greensboro enacted 27 July, 1937, under authority of the statute. Sec. 1, chap. 279, Public Laws 1935, which permits the filing of surety bonds as well as policies of insurance, provides that said bonds may be filed \u201cas a condition precedent to the operation of any . . . taxicab . . . over the streets of such city or town.\u201d Manifestly a bond filed on 23 November, 1937, could not have been filed as a condition precedent to the operation of a taxicab on 19 June, 1937, the date the accident occurred, and could have had no relation to judgments for damages arising out of injuries caused by such accident. The contention that the words \u201cto pay any final judgment that may be taken against\u201d the principal \u201cfor any personal injury\u201d for which \u201cit may be held liable at the instance of all persons,\u201d extends tbe coverage to judgments for injuries caused by accidents occurring prior to tbe delivery of tbe bond, but taken subsequently, thereto is, we think, untenable. Tbe words are not to be considered isolatedly and alone, but contextually with tbe other provisions of tbe bond and tbe statute and ordinance under which it was given. In verbis, non verba, sed res et ratio, qucerenda est. In tbe construction of words, not tbe mere words, but tbe thing and tbe meaning, are to be inquired after.\nIn construing tbe entire bond in tbe light of tbe circumstances of its execution and delivery, the statute and tbe ordinance pursuant to which it was issued and accepted, we think it is clear that it was the intention of tbe parties thatthe indemnity bond should cover any judgment taken against tbe assured for injuries occurring subsequently to its delivery and acceptance, judgments for injuries occurring prior to that time being covered by tbe policy of insurance which was canceled as of tbe time tbe indemnity bond became effective, namely, at 12 :01 o\u2019clock a.m., 24 November, 1937, and that bis Honor was correct in bolding that tbe bond on which tbe defendants Garland and Honeycutt were guarantors did not cover a judgment for damages caused by injuries inflicted by an accident occurring prior to tbe time it became effective.\nThere are no assignments of error discussed in tbe appellant\u2019s brief in so far as tbe judgment relates to tbe defendant Virginia Surety Company.\nIn tbe trial of tbe case below there was\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ScheNCk, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "L. Herbin and Frazier & Frazier for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "James MacOlamroch and A. 0. Davis for Virginia Surety Company, appellee.",
      "H. R. Stanley and R. M. Robinson for R. 11. Garland and W. C. Honeycutt, appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GROVER MANHEIM, by His Next Friend, L. W. MANHEIM, v. VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, INC., and R. H. GARLAND and W. C. HONEYCUTT.\n(Filed 31 May, 1939.)\nInsurance \u00a7 43 \u2014 Indemnity bond for taxi corporation held not to cover liability for injuries inflicted prior to the execution of the bond.\nThis action was instituted against the guarantors on an indemnity bond guaranteeing payment of any final judgment for any personal injury rendered against the principal, plaintiff having obtained judgment against the principal and execution having been returned unsatisfied. It appeared that plaintiff sustained personal injuries occurring prior to the execution and delivery of the bond but that the judgment against the principal was rendered subsequent to that date. It further appeared that prior to the execution of the indemnity bond the taxi corporation had filed with the city a liability insurance policy which was canceled on the date the indemnity bond was executed and delivered. 3eld: Construing the entire bond in the light of the circumstances and the provision of the ordinance and statute pursuant to which it was given, C. S., 2787 (36), providing that the filing of the bond or an insurance policy should be a condition precedent to the operation of any taxicab within the city, the bond does not cover the judgment for personal injuries which were sustained prior to its execution and delivery, and plaintiff may not hold the guarantors liable.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Sinle, J., at February Term, 1939, of Guil-fobd. No error.\nL. Herbin and Frazier & Frazier for plaintiff, appellant.\nJames MacOlamroch and A. 0. Davis for Virginia Surety Company, appellee.\nH. R. Stanley and R. M. Robinson for R. 11. Garland and W. C. Honeycutt, appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0693-01",
  "first_page_order": 759,
  "last_page_order": 762
}