Barefoot v. Home Insurance

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Barefoot v. Home Insurance, 204 N.C. 301 (N.C. 1933)
Adams

Barefoot v. Home Insurance

Opinion of the Court

Adams, J.

The second lien was not in effect when the car was burned. It had previously been paid and discharged. The appeal is therefore to be determined by the principle enunciated in Cottingham v. Insurance Co., 168 N. C., 259. The encumbrance suspended the risk and the policy was revived when the encumbrance was discharged. The question of Thornton’s agency and the exceptions to the instructions relating to it need not be considered. It would have been erroneous to grant the defendant’s motion for nonsuit.

No error.

Reference

Full Case Name
M. G. BAREFOOT v. THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK
Status
Published