
    A. B. WILLIAMS v. LIMITED STATES CASUALTY COMPANY.
    (Filed 5 May, 1909.)
    Insurance — Contracts—Policies—Sick Benefit — Notice to Company.
    Accepting a sick-benefit policy of insurance, with a provision that written notice shall be given the company by the insured, or his attending physician, of such disease as is therein insured against, within ten days after its contraction, binds the- insured by the contract, the stipulation being to prevent imposition, and -in the absence of such notice he cannot recover thereon.
    
      Appeal from a justice of tbe peace, beard before J ustice, J., and a jury, at January Term, 1909, of Wilkes.
    Plaintiff appealed.
    
      F. D. Hackett and Finley & Hendren for plaintiff.
    
      W. W. Barber for defendant.
   Clark, C. J.

Tbe plaintiff seeks to recover on a sick-benefit policy. Tbe policy promises a payment of $8 a week, not exceeding twenty-six consecutive weeks, for loss of time from illness, if caused exclusively and directly by any one of certain diseases specifically named. Then follows tbe following provision in tbe policy: "Provided sucb disease is contracted not earlier than fifteen days after tbis policy takes effect and, independently of any and all other causes, renders tbe insured wholly and continuously unable to transact each and every part of tbe duties pertaining to tbe occupation described herein, and necessitates continuous confinement indoors and treatment by a regularly qualified physician; and Provided written notice of sucb disease be given by tbe insured, or bis attending physician, to tbe company, at its office, within ten days after -its contraction.”

It is admitted that tbe plaintiff did not give tbe notice in ten days; in fact, be delayed for fifty days. Tbis provision' was doubtless intended to prevent imposition. But, at any rate, tbe pláintiff accepted tbe policy with that provision, and be is bound by bis contract. He did not comply with tbe conditions which would entitle him to recover, and bis Honor properly held that be could not recover. Alexander v. Insurance Co., ante, 536.

If one should suddenly become unconscious, as from apoplexy, for instance, so as to be unable to give tbe stipulated notice within ten days, whether be would be excused and therefore entitled to recover, notwithstanding tbe failure to give notice, is a question which does not arise upon tbe evidence in tbis ease.

No Error.  