At tbe close of plaintiff’s evidence, and at tbe close of all tbe evidence, tbe defendant made motions for judgment as in case of nonsuit, C. S., 567. Tbe court below overruled these motions *431and in tbis we can see no error. On motion, as in case of nonsuit, the evidence is to be taken in a light most favorable to plaintiff and he is entitled to every reasonable intendment upon the evidence and every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom.
The material parts of the terms of the policy to be considered, are as follows: “Disability benefits: Twenty dollars each month ($10.00 per $1,000 of the face of this policy) during the lifetime of the insured, and also to waive the payment of premiums, if the insured becomes wholly and presumably permanently disabled before age 60, subject to all the terms and conditions contained in section 1 hereof. . . . (1) Total disability — Disability shall be deemed to be total whenever the insured is wholly disabled by bodily injury or disease so that he is prevented thereby from engaging in any occupation whatsoever for remuneration or profit. (2) Permanent disability— Disability shall be presumed to be permanent (a) whenever the insured will presumably be so totally disabled for life; or (b) after the insured has been so totally disabled for not less than three consecutive months immediately preceding receipt of proof thereof. . . . (5) It is further agreed that the total and irrecoverable loss of the sight of both eyes, or of the use of both hands or of both feet, or of one hand and one foot, shall be considered total and permanent disability.”
The plaintiff testified, in part: “I was doing some sewing and was sewing with a wool dress on and the stitches from my work had caught in my dress and I noticed the scraps and stitches all over my dress, and I took the pins out and as I brushed the scraps off my clothes the needle flashed right back up into my eye. It struck my hand as my hand went down and the needle went right into the sight of my right eye. I almost fell, and my eye sprang full of water. ... I then came back to Dr. Gambel’s office and waited until I could get him. He came in and examined my eye and told me I had injured it, had ruined it. I could not see anything at all then, and I siijfered terribly. . . . He told me that it would have to be operated on; that there was a cataract on it. The operation did very little good; it gave me enough vision to see something moving in a light; I could tell it is a bulk moving. Up to that time, I had kept books, had been cashier for Express Company in Lenoir for four or five years, have always done book work and lots of sewing. I tried to work after that. It seems Wee I have a double vision and anything that moves I see the motion, but instead of being over here, it is over on this side. I can't stay at anything any time; the minute I start, it goes widening, that widening effect and double vision. I can read a minute or two, then it runs together. I could not see to keep books. I have been a seamstress. I ’got a position at Ivey’s after that. I could not do the work and they let me *432go. I studied sewing and before this thing happened, I could do anything I wanted to; since then, I can’t do anything. . . . My eyes were perfect before my injury. I did not wear glasses and I never had any trouble with my eyes. I am forty years old and was thirty-six when this happened. I am not able to engage in any occupation whatsoever for remuneration or profit. I can’t see a bit of improvement in my eye as time goes by; it is not as good as it was. The insurance company made an investigation of my claim, and I wrote up there about it. They paid me two payments while I was disabled, $20.00 each, one in June and one in July, 1930. . . . When I was cashier for the Express Company, I was required to write all day long. I cannot do that now. I cannot sew now.”
Dr. H. L. Sloan, witness for defendant, testified on cross-examination: "Her double vision causes her to see two where she should see one.”
Dr. J. R. Gamble, witness for defendant, testified on cross-examination: “If she had double vision, it would be confusing, as far as her doing any work is concerned. I think it would be disabling.” Re-direct examination: "A double vision is usually a diseased condition of the optic nerve. I never heard of one being corrected.”
The defendant admits that the premiums were paid up- until the suit was brought. There was no exception or assignment of error to the charge of the court below. The plaintiff testified without objection, “I am not able to engage in any occupation whatsoever for remuneration or profit.” There was other evidence to like effect. We think the evidence sufficient to be submitted to the jury as to total and permanent disability, within the meaning of the policy in suit. The evidence in this case is similar to that in Misskelley v. Insurance Co., 205 N. C., 496. Baker v. Insurance Co., ante, 106; Guy v. Insurance Co., ante, 118. In the judgment of the court below, there is
No error.