Wood v. Southeastern Life Ins. Co.
| Citation | 93 S.E. 197,107 S.C. 536 |
| Decision Date | 27 July 1917 |
| Docket Number | 9786. |
| Parties | WOOD v. SOUTHEASTERN LIFE INS. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Spartanburg County; John S. Wilson, Judge.
Action by Mrs. Lizzie Wood against the Southeastern Life Insurance Company. Verdict directed for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Sanders & De Pass, of Spartanburg, for appellant.
Haynsworth & Haynsworth, of Greenville, and John Gary Evans, of Spartanburg, for respondent.
Action on a life policy of insurance; direction of a verdict for the defendant, upon the ground that the policy was never delivered before the death of the insured; appeal by the plaintiff. These are the essential circumstances of the transaction: The insured was Halcombe; the beneficiary was his daughter, the plaintiff; the face of the policy was $2,000, and the premium was $118.32; the general agent of the company was Hipp, with office at Spartanburg; the agent under Hipp was Simpson, also at Spartanburg; one E. J. Wood husband of the plaintiff, was an agent working under Simpson. The policy is dated May 1, 1914, which was Friday; it was forwarded to Hipp at Spartanburg, and he had it there on Saturday, the 2d of May, and on Sunday, and part of Monday. Halcombe died at Spartanburg suddenly, and apparently of heart failure, the same Sunday night, at E. J. Wood's house. He had been on the streets Saturday. The paper writing called the policy was at that time in Hipp's safe; it had not been put into Halcombe's hands, or actually into Wood's hands. On Monday it was put by Hipp into Simpson's hands; and the same day Wood got the policy from Simpson, and "did not say anything about Mr Halcombe being dead." There was never any premium paid by Halcombe with his own hands. About the foregoing circumstances there is no controversy.
The contention of the plaintiff, and E. J. Wood testified to it is that Simpson told E. J. Wood Saturday morning that the policy was in Simpson's office and Wood could get it; that Wood then told Simpson he was in no particular hurry about it; that he understood the policy was in force as soon as it was issued. That incident is relied upon for a constructive delivery. The further contention of the plaintiff, and E. J. Wood testified to it also, is that the premium of $118.32 on the policy was paid by an agreement betwixt E. J. Wood and Simpson that certain sums due to Wood by Simpson should be accepted by Simpson as the payment of the premium. That incident is relied upon for payment of the premium. These two incidents make apparently two issues in the case.
The defendant made a sustaining exception, to wit, that the transaction last mentioned betwixt Simpson and Wood, without reference to the truth of it, was not in law a payment of the first premium pursuant to the contract betwixt the parties because the transaction was beyond the scope of the agency. The issue betwixt the parties, in plain parlance, is this: Did Halcombe make a contract with the company to pay the plaintiff $2,000 at Halcombe's death and get the promised premium for the risk? Any difficulty about the issue arises out of the artifice employed by modern ingenuity to accomplish a present day insurance contract. The proposed contract was written out at the head office, out of the state, on a paper called the policy, and the policy was sent to the general agent at Spartanburg; and had Halcombe or Wood called for him at the office Saturday, and paid the premium in money, or its equivalent, to Hipp or to Simpson, and got the policy, or even left the policy in the office, then the contract of insurance would have been complete.
While there are two apparent issues, one of delivery and one of payment, the two incidents referred to make but a single practical issue, and that is, Was the premium paid? For, had Wood paid the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beaty v. Massachusetts Protective Ass'n
...private agreement between appellee and Kratzer whereby the latter became nothing more than appellee's agent." See, also, Wood v. Ins. Co., 107 S.C. 536, 93 S.E. 197. Cook v. Ins. Co., 150 Mo.App. 299, 134 S.W. 13, 14, the agent refused to accept a premium tendered him, telling insured that ......
-
Smith v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S.
...... opinion by Mr. Justice Fishburne in the case of Kittles. v. General American Life Ins". Co., 182 S.C. 162, 173,. 174, 188 S.E. 784, 789, from which we quote:. . . . \xC2"...321;. Perkins v. Philadelphia Life Ins. Co., 93 S.C. 88,. 76 S.E. 29; Parry v. Southeastern Life Ins. Co., 95. S.C. 1, 78 S.E. 441; Wood v. Southeastern Life Ins. Co., 107 S.C. 536, 93 S.E. ......
-
Lester v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.
......See. Donald v. Piedmont & A. Life Ins. Co., 4 S.C. 321;. Perkins v. Philadelphia Life Ins. Co., 93 S.C. 88,. 76 S.E. 29; Parry v. Southeastern Life Ins. Co., 95. S.C. 1, 78 S.E. 441; Wood v. Southeastern Life Ins. Co., 107 S.C. 536, 93 S.E. 197; Cantey v. Philadelphia. Life Ins. Co., 166 ......
-
Kittles v. General American Life Ins. Co.
......See. Donald v. Piedmont & A. Life Ins. Co., 4 S.C. 321;. Perkins v. Philadelphia Life Ins. Co., 93 S.C. 88,. 76 S.E. 29; Parry v. Southeastern Life Ins. Co., 95. S.C. 1, 78 S.E. 441; Wood v. Southeastern Life Ins. Co., 107 S.C. 536, 93 S.E. 197; Cantey v. Philadelphia Life Ins. Co., 166 ......