The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-05-15

L
made demand on the company for
payment of the policy, which was re-
| fused. The defendant denied paw
| ment of premiums as alleged, and that
proper proofs of death were not for
warded and accepted by it; and fur
| Their that the policy was issued to the
insured, wife Of J. b., who bought
from Il son of the plaintiff tract of
! land; that the plaintiff was the real
owner of the land and that the note
executed by j. b. to the said son was
| transferred to the plaintiff: that it was
| agreed between the plaintiff and j. b.
| that the latter should insure his life
to secure the Indebtedness, but the APP
] plication was rejected ana that there
after the plaintiff asked M. b. to in
sure her life to secure the same which
was done; and that M. j. assigned
| the policy, without notice to the com-
pany, to the plaintiff who paid the
premiums; Held, that this was a wa
gering contract and void. Trinity Col
lege VS.. ms. Co., 10 N. c., 244, and
many other cases.
| Where an assignment of q policy is
made in good faith to secure a sub
sisting debt or a debt then contracted,
! it will be sustained to the extent of the
Indebtedness and premiums paid to
keep the policy alive.
| But where, at the time or before
the application is made there was an
| agreement between the plaintiff (hus-
| band) and the insured (the wife, as
| in this case, that the policy should
| be made payable to the estate of the
wife and Immediately assigned to the
| husband to secure the Indebtedness of
the husband to the plaintiff; Held, "a
wagering contract. The plaintiff has
no insurable interest in the life of
M. b.
The extent Of the decision in this
case however, is that the defendant
company is entitled, if it can, to show
| that the application was made and the
policy obtained under the circum-
stances and for the purposes alleged
and that it had no notice of the agree
ment or of the assignment, and that
there was error in refusing to submit
the issues rendered by the defendant
and in excluding the testimony bearing
upon the same.
Hill vs.. Gettys, appellant. From
Rutherford. Affirmed.
Action to set aside a mortgage al
| legged to have been made without con-
sideration and procured by fraud
There was judgment directing the can
collation. of the instrument. Ihe only
exception is to the refusal of the court
below to non-suit the plaintiff upon
the evidence, and this was affirmed
in this court as IneTe was eNluellSS
proper to go to the jury.
Equity will not cancel mortgage
simply because the deed was made
without consideration; nor when the
mortgage fails to perform some pro-
mise made at the time of its eXecutJon;
but the party is left to make his de-
Tense when action is brought to fore
close.
But in this case where the jury find
I,te Of 10 tCe1C re
procured by fraudulent representa-
tons that the mortgage would dis
charge the assumed obligation, it was
held that there was no reason why
equity should not grant relief.
Robinson vs.. City of GoId5boro, appel
liant. Affirmed.
Injunction to restrain the defendant
from issuing bonds for electric lights
etc. The defendant relies on the de-
ciSiOn in FaWcett VS.. Mt. Airy at last
term. 1874 n. c. CAS- S. e. Rep, 1920,
as authority to issue the bonds with
| out the approval of the qualified Vo-
| ters of the city, where it was held that
| in the absence of any restrictive
provision, the power may be conferred
| on towns to contract debts and issue
bonds for necessary expenses and that
| furnishing light and water was nee
essary expense.
But the facts in this case bring it
within the principle announced in
| Wadsworth VS.. Concord, 1873 n. c.,
| 5S7-the charter of the city of Colds
| boro providing that bonds may be is
sued when the proposition has been
approved by the voters.
| Where in such case the mode of
contracting the debt is specially and
plainly prescribed and limited, that
| mode is exclusive and must be pursued
| or the contract will not bind the city.
| douglas j., concurring in RESULT
| Holder vs.. Cannon Mfg. Co, appel
liant. From Cabarrus. No error.
| Action for damages alleged to have
| been caused by being discharged from
| service of the Gibson Mfg. co. 1T
was in evidence for the plaintiff that
| when, he was discharged he asked the
| cause of it, and was told by the boss
of the weaving room that he had a
| letter from the defendant company re-
! questing his discharge from the Glib
| son Company. and the evidence for
| the defendant was among other things
! that no such letter was ever received
and the manager of the defendant
company was also the manager of the
Gibson Company, and that he as man
ager of the Gibson Company discharg-
ed the plaintiff of his own motion be-
| cause he refused to make up some lost
time at the mill of the defendant com
pany; Held, that the plaintiff is emit
tied to recover.
Held further, that to constitute NAL
ice in a case like this, it is not neces-
Ec-y that actual i'll will or hatred be
shown towards the plaintiff, but it is
sufficient if the act done, to the ap-
parent damage of the plaintiff, is with
out legal excuse.
One, who causes the discharge o.
another from the service of a thirC
Iparty maliciously and wilfully anC
without lawful justification, is liable il
damages.
The question in this case was no
whether the plaintiff was discharged
by false representations of the defen
dant, but was the discharge procured
through malice-without a lawful jus
tification.
The court says that it is not to be-
understood by anything said in the
opinion that one employer cannot in
quire of another of the character anC
habits of a former employee of tina
other, and that an answer made il
good faith upon a knowledge of facts
and acted on by the recipient would
subject the giver of the information t
a suit for damages.
(Connor and Walker, ~, dissent