TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Price v. Life & Casualty Insurance Co. of Tennessee, Inc.

C. O. Price, Administrator of Hulda Cook v. Life and Casualty Insurance Company of Tennessee, Incorporated.

Price v. Life & Cas. Ins. Co. of Tenn., 160 S.E. 367 (N.C. 1931)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 30, 1931
Judges
Adams
Citations
160 S.E. 367201 N.C. 3761931 N.C. LEXIS 250

Opinion of the Court — Adams

Adams, J.

Tbe case was tried in tbe Superior Court in December, 1930. At tbe close of tbe plaintiff’s evidence tbe defendant moved for judgment of nonsuit. Tbe motion was denied; tbe defendant excepted and declined to offer evidence. Tbe jury returned a verdict in favor of tbe plaintiff for one hundred and seventy-five dollars and tbe court gave tbe plaintiff a judgment for tbis sum. On tbe next day tbe court upon motion of tbe defendant set aside tbe judgment as a matter of law and not as a matter of discretion. Tbe specific ground upon which tbe judgment was vacated is not set out in tbe order, but in its brief tbe appellant says tbat tbe instruction given tbe jury was in conflict with tbe principle stated in Gilmore v. Ins. Co., 199 N. C., 632 . Tbis objection, however, was essentially involved in tbe judge’s refusal to dismiss tbe action upon tbe plaintiff’s evidence; and having adjudged tbe legal sufficiency of tbe evidence before verdict, tbe court could not after verdict and judgment reverse tbis ruling as a matter of law. On tbis point tbe defendant’s remedy lay in its exception and appeal.

Godfrey v. Coach Co., 200 N. C., 41 ;

Lee v. Penland, ibid., 340;

Price v. Ins Co., ibid., 427.

It appears from tbe face of tbe order'that tbe court refused to vacate tbe judgment as a matter of discretion. Such exercise of discretion was final. As a rule one judge may not review tbe action of another judge of coordinate jurisdiction on tbe same state of facts. Judge Oranmer’s judgment must therefore be affirmed.

Tbe appellant says tbat if Judge Cranmer’s order is correct tbe plaintiff will recover a judgment which cannot be sustained under tbe *378 law announced in the Gilmore case;

but as pointed out by the appellee’s brief two courses were open to the appellant, and it pursued the one which led to an unexpected result.

It is not necessary to advert to the obvious distinction between the present case and Morgan v. Owen, 200 N. C., 34 . Judgment Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1940: 21951: 11952: 11954: 11967: 11983: 119402026peak 1940 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Stokes304 S.E.2d 184 (N.C. 1983)
  2. Bruton v. Light Co.6 S.E.2d 822 (N.C. 1940)
  3. Neighbors v. Neighbors73 S.E.2d 153 (N.C. 1952)
  4. Ward v. Cruse67 S.E.2d 257 (N.C. 1951)
  5. Davis v. Federal Land Bank7 S.E.2d 373 (N.C. 1940)
  6. Davis v. Jenkins80 S.E.2d 257 (N.C. 1954)

Most recent

  1. State v. Stokes304 S.E.2d 184 (N.C. 1983)
  2. Bittle v. Jarrell154 S.E.2d 43 (N.C. 1967)
  3. Davis v. Jenkins80 S.E.2d 257 (N.C. 1954)
  4. Neighbors v. Neighbors73 S.E.2d 153 (N.C. 1952)
  5. Ward v. Cruse67 S.E.2d 257 (N.C. 1951)
  6. Davis v. Federal Land Bank7 S.E.2d 373 (N.C. 1940)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Gilmore v. Imperial Life Ins., 155 S.E. 566 (N.C. 1930) 15
Godfrey v. Queen City Coach Co., 156 S.E. 139 (N.C. 1930) 8
Morgan ex rel. Robinson v. Owen, 156 S.E. 161 (N.C. 1930) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list