Taylor v. Coburn
| Decision Date | 02 March 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 60.,60. |
| Citation | 202 N.C. 324,162 S.E. 748 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | TAYLOR et al. v. COBURN et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Martin County; Barnhill, Judge.
Suit by R. E. Taylor and others against Robert L. Coburn, administrator of Mac G. Taylor, deceased, and another. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal.
No error.
The Union Central Life Insurance Company of Cincinnati issued two life insurance policies to Mac G. Taylor, each in the sum of $1,000, in both of which Bettie Taylor, his wife, was named as beneficiary. The policies were numbered, respectively, 242203 and 495306. The beneficiary Bettie Taylor died in August, 1918, and in December, 1919, Mac G. Taylor intermarried with the defendant Chloe Taylor. After the latter marriage. Taylor made Chloe Taylor the beneficiary in policy 495306. In the other policy no change of beneficiary was made except as effected by the terms of the policy.
Taylor borrowed from the Union Central Life Insurance Company of Cincinnati the sum of $280, and deposited with the company the policy numbered 242203 as security for its payment.
After the death of Mac G. Taylor, the insurance company paid to his administrator the sum of $1,256.38 on account of policy 242203, and the money is now on deposit for disbursement according to law.
The plaintiffs brought suit against the defendants for the recovery of the amount paid on the policy, alleging that Mac G. Taylor during his lifetime gave them the policy in question and instructed them to keep the premiums paid as they matured. They allege that in obedience to the instructions of the insured they, with the assistance of the de-fendant Chloe Taylor, paid the premiums, and that the plaintiffs other than W. A. Everett, Jr., are entitled, as against the administrator of Mac G. Taylor, to the amount paid on such policy. On the pleadings filed and the evidence introduced, the jury returned the following verdict:
It was thereupon adjudged that the plaintiffs, other than W. A. Everett, Jr., recover of the defendant Robert L. Coburn, administrator, the sum of $1,256.38 with interest from November 23, 1931, and the cost of the action. The defendants excepted and appealed.
Elbert S. Peel and Coburn & Coburn, all of Williamston, for appellants.
A. R. Dunning, of Williamston, for appellees.
The defendants have abandoned all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Weinstein
...of the property must be complete and his control relinquished. Parker v. Mott, 181 N.C. 435, 107 S.E. 500, 25 A.L.R. 637; Taylor v. Coburn, 202 N.C. 324, 162 S.E. 748; Am.Jur. 742. Applying these principles, we think the evidence here, in the light most favorable for the State, tends to sho......
-
Meadows Fertilizer Co. v. Godley
... ... which cannot ripen into a vested interest before the death of ... the insured." ... In ... Taylor v. Coburn, 202 N.C. at page 326, 162 S.E ... 748, 749, it is held, citing numerous authorities: ... "Accordingly it is generally held that a gift ... ...
-
Meadows Fertilizer Co v. Godley, 9.
...not property but a mere expectancy, which cannot ripen into a vested interest before the death of the insured." In Taylor v. Coburn, 202 N. C. at page 326, 162 S. E. 748, 749, it is held, citing numerous authorities: "Accordingly it is generally held that a gift of an insurance policy may b......
-
Provident Life and Acc. Ins. Co. v. Suarez, 87-1714
...Lion's High Point, North Carolina store. It is undisputed that North Carolina law governs in this diversity action.2 See Taylor v. Coburn, 162 S.E. 748 (N.C.1932) (plaintiffs entitled to proceeds of life insurance policy where it was given to them as a gift and they had assumed premium paym......