Case Name: GEORGE W. HUGHES and Wife, BETTIE, v. THE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1911-11-09
Citations: 156 N.C. 592
Docket Number: 
Parties: GEORGE W. HUGHES and Wife, BETTIE, v. THE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 156
Pages: 592–593

Head Matter:
GEORGE W. HUGHES and Wife, BETTIE, v. THE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA.
(Filed 9 November, 1911.)
Insurance — Policies—False Representations — Equity.
This action to recover premiums paid for a policy of life insurance and interest thereon, alleging that it was induced by the false representations of defendant’s agents, is controlled by the principles announced in Whitehurst’s case, 149 N. C., 273; Jones’ ease, 151 N. C., 54; Jones’ case, 153 N. C., 388; Sykes’ case, 148 N. C., 13, and similar ones.
Appeal from Daniels, J., at May Term, 1911, of AlamaNCE.
Civil action, brought to recover on certain policies of insurance issued by defendant.
These issues were submitted to the jury:
1. Did the defendant, through its agents, represent to plaintiffs that it could, and would, issue to said plaintiffs insurance policies on their lives and upon the lives of their children, with provisions therein stipulated that at the end of ten years from dates thereof the plaintiffs might withdraw the whole amount of premiums paid in, with 4 per cent interest thereon? Answer: Yes.
2. If so, were suck representations false? Answer: Yes.
3. If so, were suck representations relied upon by tke plaintiffs? Answer: Yes.
4. If so, were tke plaintiffs induced tkereby to enter into said contracts of insurance? Answer: Yes.
5. Did tke plaintiffs waive tkeir rigkts to rely upon said false representations? Answer: No.
8. "Wkat amount are plaintiffs entitled to recover of tke defendants? Answer: Tke wkole amount paid in, witk 6 per cent interest from tke beginning of policy to tke last payment.
'From tke judgment rendered defendant appealed.
Lamerón & Long and John, H. Vernon for plaintiffs.
W. II. Carroll for defendant.

Opinion:
Pee OubiaM.
A careful examination of tke record in reference to tke twenty assignments of error discloses no substantial error committed upon tke trial.
Tkere is no material respect in wkick tkis case differs" from tke several cases brougkt by tkis defendant to tkis Court kere-tofore. Caldwell v. Insurance Co., 140 N. C., 100; Sykes v. Insurance Co., 148 N. C., 13; Stroud v. Insurance Co., 148 N. C., 54; Whitehurst v. Insurance Co., 149 N. C., 273; Jones v. Insurance Co., 151 N. C., 54; Jones v. Insurance Co., 153 N. C., 388; Briggs v. Insurance Co., 70 S. E., 1068.
We do not tkink tke subject needs further discussion.
No error.