Seay v. American Savings Life Insurance
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. PUBLIC STAFF-NC UTIL. COM'N (N.C. 1988)
- State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Public Staff-North Carolina Utilities Commission (N.C. 1988)
- Whitehead v. City of Charlotte (N.C. 1942)
- Brantley v. . R. R. (N.C. 1938)
- Brantley v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad (N.C. 1938)
- Airport Authority v. . Johnson (N.C. 1946)
- Powell v. . Veasey (N.C. 1938)
- Powell v. Veasey (N.C. 1938)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In tbe case of Seay v. Ins. Co., 208 N. C., 832, is tbe following: “Civil action to recover agent’s commissions on insurance premium renewals, ‘paid to and accepted by tbe (defendant) company, while this (agency) contract is in force . . . limit 9 years.’ Tbe defendant sought to terminate its agency contract with tbe plaintiff, prior to tbe expiration of tbe ninth renewal of some of tbe policies written by plaintiff. This suit is to recover commissions on such renewals up to tbe 9th on each policy. Judgment of nonsuit was entered in tbe municipal court of tbe city of Higb Point, which was reversed on appeal to tbe Superior Court of Guilford County. From tbe ruling of tbe Superior Court tbe defendant appeals, assigning error. (Per Curiam) : Tbe Court being evenly divided in opinion, Glarhson, J., not sitting, tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court is affirmed and stands, according to tbe uniform practice of appellate courts, as tbe decision in this case, without becoming a precedent,” citing many authorities.
This action is being prosecuted by tbe same plaintiff, against tbe successor of tbe same defendant, for recovery under tbe same contract as tbat considered in tbe former action. Tbe plaintiff pleads res judi-cata. Tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court in tbe former action, unchanged on appeal, is determinative of tbe plaintiff’s right to recover under tbe contract in this action, and hence tbe judgment of nonsuit is reversed.
We think what was said in tbe above case is applicable to tbe present action, and tbe judgment of tbe court below is
Reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.