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
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