
    MARY CARTER LONG v. THE METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.
    (Filed 26 June, 1935.)
    Appeal by plaintiff from Pless, J., at February Term, 1935, of RockiNuham.
    Affirmed.
    This is an action to recover on a certificate issued by the defendant to Clarence 33. Carter, the deceased husband of the plaintiff, under the provisions of a group policy of insurance issued by the defendant to the Riverside and Dan River Cotton Mills, of Danville, Virginia, insuring its employees.
    At the date of the issuance of the certificate, to wit: 18 August, 1927, Clarence 33. Carter was an employee of the Riverside and Dan River Cotton Mills. He ceased to be an employee of said Cotton Mills on or about 23 May, 1930, and died on 6 March, 1933. The plaintiff is the beneficiary named in the certificate. She brought this action in the Superior Court of Rockingham County, North Carolina, on 21 March, 1934, and alleged in her complaint that under the provisions of the certificate the defendant is indebted to her in the sum of $800.00, with interest on said sum from 6 March, 1933.
    In its answer the defendant alleged, among other things, that Clarence 33. Carter, after he had ceased to be an employee of the Riverside and Dan River Cotton Mills, brought an action against the defendant in the corporation court of the city of Danville, Virginia, to recover on the certificate sued on in this action, and that a final judgment was rendered in said action tbat tbe said Clarence B. Carter was not entitled to recover of tbe defendant on said certificate. Tbe defendant alleged tbat tbe plaintiff in tbis action is estopped to recover of tbe defendant on said certificate by tbe judgment in tbe action brought by Clarence B. Carter against tbe defendant in tbe corporation court of tbe city of Danville.
    At tbe trial of tbe action, on tbe facts found by tbe court from evidence offered by botb tbe plaintiff and tbe defendant, it was adjudged tbat plaintiff is estopped by tbe judgment of tbe corporation court of tbe city of Danville from recovery on tbe certificate sued on in tbis action.
    ■ Tbe action was dismissed, and plaintiff appealed to tbe Supreme Court.
    
      P. T. Stiers for plaintiff.
    
    
      Smith, Wharton <& Hudgvivs for defendant.
    
   Per Curiam.

There was no error in tbe trial of tbis action. Tbe judgment dismissing tbe action is

Afiirmed.  