174 P.2d 834 (Idaho 1946), 7325, Merrill v. Federal Crop Ins. Corporation
|Citation:||174 P.2d 834, 67 Idaho 196|
|Opinion Judge:||Porter, District Judge.|
|Party Name:||MERRILL et al. v. FEDERAL CROP INS. CORPORATION|
|Attorney:||John A. Carver and E. H. Casterlin, both of Boise, for appellant. A. A. Merrill, of Idaho Falls, for respondents.|
|Judge Panel:||Porter, District Judge. Budge, Givens, and Miller, JJ., and Glennon, District Judge, concur. Ailshie, C. J., did not sit at the hearing or participate therein. Holden, J., deeming himself disqualified, did not sit at the hearing or participate herein.|
|Case Date:||November 26, 1946|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Idaho|
Appeal from District Court, Ninth District, Bonneville County; C. J. Taylor, Judge.
Regulations regularly issued and published have the effectiveness of law. McFall v. Arkoosh, 37 Idaho 243, 215 P. 978; State v. Taylor, 58 Idaho 656, 78 P.2d 125.
The law is conclusively deemed to be written into every contract. Dighton v. First Exchange Nat. Bank, 33 Idaho 273, 192 P. 832.
Regulations regularly issued and published in the Federal Register must be considered as a part of the contract. United States v. Williams, 302 U.S. 46, 50, 58 S.Ct. 81, 82 L.Ed. 39; Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 577, 54 S.Ct. 840, 78 L.Ed. 1434; White v. United States, 270 U.S. 175, 180, 46 S.Ct. 274, 70 L.Ed. 530.
The rule that an insurance company will not be permitted to defeat a recovery upon a policy issued by it, by proving the existence of facts which would render it void, where it had full knowledge of them when the policy was issued, is too well established by the authorities in this state, to require further discussion. Carroll v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 28 Idaho 466, at page 480, 154 P. 985; Young v. California Ins. Co., 55 Idaho 682, at page 688, 46 P.2d 718.
In the case at bar, there is neither pleading nor proof that the respondent paid or tendered the return of the premium. Mabee v. Continental Casualty Co., 37 Idaho 667, 219 P. 598, 37 A.L.R. 348.
Defendant insurance company is estopped to now say plaintiff's crop was not insured and the court properly instructed the jury on this question FF. 440 to 443. Independent Gas & Oil Co. v. T. B. Smith Co., 51 Idaho 710, 10 P.2d 317; 40 Cyc. 270; Troendly v. J. I. Case Co., 51 Idaho 578, 8 P.2d 276; 21 C.J. 1253, Sec. 270.
The doctrines of estoppel and waiver apply to government agencies as well as to individuals. State v. Twin Falls-Salmon River Land & Water Co., 30 Idaho 41, 166 P. 220; United States v. Stinson, 7 Cir., 125 F. 907.
[67 Idaho 197] The appellant, The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, is a body corporate created by Congress as an agency of and within the Department of Agriculture for the purpose of insuring crops against loss from drouth and other causes. The respondents, A. A. Merrill and N. D. Merrill, are copartners doing business under the firm name of Merrill Bros. The respondents own and operate 460 acres of land located in Bonneville County. In the fall of the year 1944 the respondents planted 400 acres of such land in fall wheat. This wheat winter killed and in the spring of 1945 the respondents recultivated such land and planted the same together with 60 additional acres in Early Bart spring wheat. In March, 1945, the respondents consulted with the Bonneville County Agricultural Conservation Committee, the admitted agent of the appellant, with reference to securing insurance from the appellant covering the 460 acres of wheat. The respondents advised the Committee that 400 acres of this wheat was to be planted upon ground which had been in fall wheat; that the fall wheat [67 Idaho 198] had winter killed and the ground been recultivated. The Bonneville County Committee thereupon advised the respondents that all of such wheat crop was eligible for insurance in the appellant. Accordingly, the respondents on March 26, 1945, signed a form of application for insurance covering the 460 acres for the years 1945, 1946 and 1947. The application on the same date was recommended by the Bonneville County Agricultural Conservation Committee for acceptance. The respondents were thereafter notified under date of May 28, 1945, from the Denver office of the appellant that their application had been duly accepted by the authorized agent of appellant; and that the insurance contract consisted of the accepted application and the appropriate rules and regulations of the appellant.
The crop of respondents made a normal growth until...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP