Court Opinion

ID: 9826054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:16:52.555693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:49.204947
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chiee Justice Brease:
I concur in the result of the opinion of Mr. Justice Bonham, upholding the direction of verdict by the trial Judge in favor of the insurance company, on the ground that the contract of insurance was subject to the laws of the State of North Carolina. The decision of the Supreme Court of that state, in the case of Wilkie v. New York Life Insurance Co., 146 N. C., 513, 60 S. E., 427, and the statutes of North Carolina, reproduced in the opinion of Mr. Justice Bonham, sustain the conclusion of the trial Court.
If the case were controlled by the laws of South Carolina, I would be inclined to the view that the directed verdict in favor of the insurance company in the lower Court was erroneous, basing this opinion upon the case of Davis v. Home Insurance Co., 125 S. C., 381, 118 S. E., 536, where this Court strongly approved' the holdings of the Oregon Court in the case of Stinchcombe v. Insurance Co., 46 Or., 316, 80 P., 213. While the Davis case involved a policy of insurance issued upon an automobile, and not a life insurance policy as is involved here, the Stinchcombe case, upon which the conclusion of the Davis case very much rested, did involve a policy of life insurance. The reasoning of the Stinchcombe case appeals strongly to me.
One of the appellant’s exceptions (No. 10) questioned the correctness of the ruling of the trial Court in permitting the respondent, insurance company, to introduce in evidence the decision of the North Carolina Court in the case of *194Wilkie v. New York Life Insurance Co., supra. It may be that the law book containing this decision was not properly introduced, but the exception cannot be considered here, since the appellant has not argued it, and, under our rules, that exception is to be considered abandoned. In all probability, the learned counsel of the appellant, who very ably argued this cause in this Court, came to the conclusion that, even if the exception should be sustained, it would not avail their client’s interest, for on a new trial respondent would take care to see that the decision in the Wilkie case was introduced in the proper manner and at the proper time. Counsel no doubt very wisely thought that, if this Court reached the conclusion that the laws of North Carolina and the decisions of the Court of that state supported the contention of the insurance company, their client’s case would necessarily fall.
Mr. Justice StabrEr concurs.