payment claim in North Carolina

1972A distinction between a liability insurance policy and general assets of an insured is well stated by Justice McCoy in Doak v. Superior Court, 257 Cal. App. 2d 825 , 65 Cal. Rptr. 193 , 27 A.L.R. 3d 1362 (1968), as follows: “A public liability insurance policy in force at the time of the tort establishes a special fund to which the injured party may look for the payment of his claim when the defendant’s liability has been legally established by a judgment against him.

1972A distinction between a liability insurance policy and general assets of an insured is well stated by Justice McCoy in Doak v. Superior Court, 257 Cal. App. 2d 825 , 65 Cal. Rptr. 193 , 27 A.L.R. 3d 1362 (1968), as follows: “A public liability insurance policy in force at the time of the tort establishes a special fund to which the injured party may look for the payment of his claim when the defendant’s liability has been legally established by a judgment against him.

1939Therefore, Hinton v. Whitehurst, 73 N. C., 157 , is not in point.

1926J., in same proceeding, reported in 109 N. C., 188 .

1916These positions will be found approved in Jones v. Boyd, 80 N. C., pp. 258-...; Harshaw v. McKesson, 66 N. C., 266 , and other cases; and, on the facts admitted in the pleadings and established by the verdict, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the defendant for the amount due at the time the action was commenced, apparently three payments of $300 each, and accrued interest on the debt, subject to the credit of $150, to be levied on the general property of defendant, subject, however,' to the exemptions allowed him by law.

1916Cited: Campbell v. Hall , 187 N.C. 466 (d); Hambley v. White , 192 N.C. 34 (c); Hardware Co. v. Burtner , 199 N.C. 745 (3c).

1916Cited: Campbell v. Hall , 187 N.C. 466 (d); Hambley v. White , 192 N.C. 34 (c); Hardware Co. v. Burtner , 199 N.C. 745 (3c).

1909Pegram v. Arrington, 82 N. C., 326 ; Shober v. Wheeler, 144 N. C., 409 .

1903It does not deprive the creditor of a remedy when he had provided by contract to enforce through a trust deed the payment of his claim." This case was approved in Fievel v. Zuber , 67 Tex. 275 [ 67 Tex. 275 ], the Court saying: "The statute does not say that no debt shall be collected, but that no action shall be brought.

1903It does not deprive the creditor of a remedy when he had provided by contract to enforce through a trust deed the payment of his claim." This case was approved in Fievel v. Zuber , 67 Tex. 275 [ 67 Tex. 275 ], the Court saying: "The statute does not say that no debt shall be collected, but that no action shall be brought.

1902Dec., on page 733, it is said: “But it (the Legislature) can not compel the payment of the claim which the city is neither under a legal nor a moral obligation to pay.” For this he cites Blanding v. Burr, 13 Cal., 343 ; Smith v. Morse, 2 Cal., 524 ; Nevada v. Hampton, 13 Nev., 441 ; Thomas v. Leland, 24 Wend., 65 ; Guilford v. Supervisors, 13 N. Y., 144 ; New Orleans v. Clark, 95 U. S., 644 , and a great many other cases. *213 This money was not levied or assessed against the plaintiffs intestate, nor his property.

1902Dec., on page 733, it is said: “But it (the Legislature) can not compel the payment of the claim which the city is neither under a legal nor a moral obligation to pay.” For this he cites Blanding v. Burr, 13 Cal., 343 ; Smith v. Morse, 2 Cal., 524 ; Nevada v. Hampton, 13 Nev., 441 ; Thomas v. Leland, 24 Wend., 65 ; Guilford v. Supervisors, 13 N. Y., 144 ; New Orleans v. Clark, 95 U. S., 644 , and a great many other cases. *213 This money was not levied or assessed against the plaintiffs intestate, nor his property.

1902Dec., on page 733, it is said: “But it (the Legislature) can not compel the payment of the claim which the city is neither under a legal nor a moral obligation to pay.” For this he cites Blanding v. Burr, 13 Cal., 343 ; Smith v. Morse, 2 Cal., 524 ; Nevada v. Hampton, 13 Nev., 441 ; Thomas v. Leland, 24 Wend., 65 ; Guilford v. Supervisors, 13 N. Y., 144 ; New Orleans v. Clark, 95 U. S., 644 , and a great many other cases. *213 This money was not levied or assessed against the plaintiffs intestate, nor his property.

1902Dec., on page 733, it is said: “But it (the Legislature) can not compel the payment of the claim which the city is neither under a legal nor a moral obligation to pay.” For this he cites Blanding v. Burr, 13 Cal., 343 ; Smith v. Morse, 2 Cal., 524 ; Nevada v. Hampton, 13 Nev., 441 ; Thomas v. Leland, 24 Wend., 65 ; Guilford v. Supervisors, 13 N. Y., 144 ; New Orleans v. Clark, 95 U. S., 644 , and a great many other cases. *213 This money was not levied or assessed against the plaintiffs intestate, nor his property.