{
  "id": 8624603,
  "name": "H. J. HAYWOOD v. THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Haywood v. Home Insurance Co.",
  "decision_date": "1940-12-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "736",
  "last_page": "737",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "218 N.C. 736"
    }
  ],
  "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": "31 S. E., 848",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 N. C., 604",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660289
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/123/0604-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 S. E., 553",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 N. C., 103",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659145
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/131/0103-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 S. E., 814",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 N. C., 539",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629135
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/213/0539-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 S. E., 416",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 N. C., 125",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627949
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/191/0125-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 196,
    "char_count": 2645,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.503,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8027587975908883e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7166564537160275
    },
    "sha256": "0805471c8491848dc0b6c8e7e6278f7bfbfd115d3bb7c7af4bc3b191ac8cc11e",
    "simhash": "1:141a5c36b91605c1",
    "word_count": 480
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:22:12.547739+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "H. J. HAYWOOD v. THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "DeviN, J.\nDefendant\u2019s principal assignment of error relates to the judge\u2019s charge. With reference to the first and second issues the court instructed the jury as follows: \u201cI direct you to answer the first issue \u2018Yes,\u2019 and the second issue \u2018Yes.\u2019 \u201d The exception to this instruction must be sustained. The defendant\u2019s denial placed the burden on the plaintiff to prove his case by the greater weight of the evidence, and it was error for the trial judge to direct a verdict in favor of the plaintiff without leaving it to the jury to determine the credibility of the testimony. McIntosh Practice & Pro., 632.\n\u201cA familiar principle of practice forbids a directed instruction in favor of the party upon whom rests the burden of proof.\u201d Yarn Mills v. Armstrong, 191 N. C., 125, 131 S. E., 416; Evans v. Ins. Co., 213 N. C., 539, 196 S. E., 814; House v. R. R., 131 N. C., 103, 42 S. E., 553: Cox v. R. R.. 123 N. C., 604, 31 S. E., 848.\nDefendant complains also of tbe trial judge\u2019s failure in bis charge to put tbe burden of proof on tbe third issue on tbe plaintiff. The proper placing of tbe burden of proof is regarded as a substantial right. Arnold v. Trust Co., ante, 433.\nFor tbe errors pointed out there must be a\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "DeviN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John H. Gooh and Henry L. Anderson for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Helms & Mulliss, Oates & Quillen, and Robert H. Dye for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "H. J. HAYWOOD v. THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY.\n(Filed 20 December, 1940.)\n1. Trial \u00a7 27b: Insurance \u00a7 25c \u2014 Directed verdict may not be given in favor of party upon whom rests the burden of proof.\nIn an action on a policy of fire insurance on an automobile, the burden is on plaintiff to prove insurance, loss by fire and damage; and therefore a direction that the jury answer the issues of insurance and loss by fire in favor of plaintiff is error, since the credibility of the evidence is for the jury; and it is also error for the court to fail to place the burden of proof on the issue of damages on plaintiff.\n2. Trial \u00a7 29c: Evidence \u00a7 6\u2014\nThe burden of proof is a substantial right, and the failure of the charge to properly place the burden of proof is reversible error.\nAppeal by defendant from Sinclair, Emergency Judge, at May Term, 1940, of CuMBERLAND.\nNew trial.\nAction to recover on a fire insurance policy on an automobile. Plaintiff alleged the execution of the policy and the loss of the automobile by fire. Defendant denied the loss by fire as alleged. Issues addressed to the questions of (1) insurance, (2) loss by fire, and (3) amount of loss were submitted to the jury and answered in favor of the plaintiff. From judgment on the verdict, defendant appealed.\nJohn H. Gooh and Henry L. Anderson for plaintiff, appellee.\nHelms & Mulliss, Oates & Quillen, and Robert H. Dye for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0736-01",
  "first_page_order": 804,
  "last_page_order": 805
}