Hodges v. Planters' & People's Mut. Fire Ass'n of Ga.
| Citation | 139 S.E. 362,37 Ga.App. 203 |
| Decision Date | 10 September 1927 |
| Docket Number | 17580. |
| Parties | HODGES v. PLANTERS' & PEOPLE'S MUT. FIRE ASS'N OF GEORGIA. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Error from City Court of Reidsville; C. L. Cowart, Judge.
Action by Mrs. E. A. Hodges against the Planters' & People's Mutual Fire Association of Georgia, etc. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
A. S Way, of Reidsville, for plaintiff in error.
W. T Burkhalter, of Reidsville, for defendant in error.
1. Of two inconsistent clauses appearing in the body of an insurance policy, the one more favorable to the insured will be adopted. Where a clause in a policy of fire insurance provides that "if, at any time, there shall be a change of title or ownership of the within described property, the obligation of the insured and the association shall cease," and another clause further on in the policy provides that if the insured "shall mortgage or deed his *** property to secure a debt or to obtain money, the said policy shall be canceled by the president of this association unless the secretary and treasurer and the president of this association approves of the said loan or mortgage or deed to secure debt, and also approve of the policy to remain in force," a transfer of the title to the property by the insured to secure a debt will not ipso facto void the policy, but it cannot be voided on account of such a transfer until the president of the association elects to cancel it upon this ground.
2. While the posting of a letter properly addressed and stamped will authorize an inference that the letter was afterwards received in due course of mail by the addressee, such posting has no value as tending to establish an inference that the addressee received it, and such an inference is not authorized, where there is positive, uncontradicted, and unimpeached testimony by the defendant that he did not receive the letter. Union Brokerage Co. v. Beall Bros., 30 Ga.App. 748 (3), 119 S.E. 533; Strauss v Pearlman, 15 Ga.App. 86, 82 S.E. 578; Parker v. Southern Ruralist Co., 15 Ga.App. 334 (2), 83 S.E. 158.
3. In a suit by the insured against the association to recover under the policy for a loss sustained, one of the grounds of defense relied upon by the defendant being that before the loss occurred the defendant had, by notice to the insured canceled the policy, and the only evidence of notice by the association to...
To continue reading
Request your trial