Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Kramer
| Decision Date | 15 May 1917 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 5782 |
| Citation | 1917 OK 235,165 P. 179,65 Okla. 165 |
| Parties | AETNA LIFE INS. CO. v. KRAMER et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Jurisdiction of Supreme Court--Order Overruling Motion for New Trial--Statute. Under the second subdivision of section 5236, Rev. Laws 1910, this court has jurisdiction to reverse, vacate, or modify an order overruling motion for new trial, notwithstanding the judgment has not been entered on the verdict, where there is a verdict in a case tried to a jury.
2. Insurance--Statutes--Construction. Sections 3420-3434, inclusive, Rev. Laws of Oklahoma 1910, do not fix the contractual relations between insurance companies doing business in the state and their agents, but this is regulated by contract. The statutes above were not enacted to regulate the relations between insurance companies and their agents, but for the protection of the insuring public.
3. Trial--Power of Trial Court--Reprimand of Witness. Trial courts in the exercise of their judicial prerogative have a right to reprimand a witness who, contrary to the admonition of the court, persists in making voluntary statements not elicited by his examination. The admonition, however, must not be done by word, sign, token, or gesture that would indicate the opinion of the trial court as to the merits of the case, or the truth or falsity of testimony of the witness reprimanded.
Martin & Moss, for plaintiff in error.
Rice & Lyons, for defendants in error.
¶1 Plaintiff in error attached to their brief a motion to dismiss appeal in this cause, because the case-made fails to contain any final judgment of the court rendering judgment for defendants. The record shows verdict, motion for new trial, and judgment overruling motion for new trial, and provides for an appeal, giving the time to make and serve case-made and providing for a supersedeas. Under the law announced in the case of Roof v. Franks, 26 Okla. 392, 110 P. 1098, and Phillips v. Oliver, 53 Okla. 168, 155 P. 586, this court has jurisdiction to review, vacate, or modify an order overruling motion for new trial, where there is a verdict in a case tried to a jury, notwithstanding a judgment has not been entered on the verdict, and motion to dismiss will be overruled. This is a suit instituted by the Aetna Life Insurance Company, plaintiff in error, which will hereafter be designated plaintiff, to recover from Kramer Bros., defendants in error, who will hereinafter be designated as defendants, money alleged by plaintiff to be due it on account of premiums collected by the defendants. The plaintiff alleged that, the defendants were acting as its agents under a verbal appointment made by C. H. Verschoyle, a general agent of the plaintiff. Defendants denied that they were the agents of plaintiff, and alleged that they were acting as agents or brokers for Verschoyle & Co., general agents of plaintiff, in the matter of soliciting and collecting the insurance in controversy, and that they had settled in full with Verschoyle & Co. There are only two issues presented by the pleadings and argued in the brief by plaintiff: First. As to whether or not defendants were, as a matter of law, agents of the plaintiff at the time complained of. Second. As to the misconduct of the trial judge in directing certain remarks to witness of plaintiff while on the stand. We will now consider the first question presented by the pleadings and evidence. Plaintiff contends that, as a matter of law, the defendants, Kramer Bros., were the agents of the plaintiff under and by virtue of the statutes of the state regulating insurance companies, and particularly section 3431, Revised Laws of the State of Oklahoma of 1910, which is as follows:
¶2 In order to properly ascertain the force of this section and the intent of the Legislature in passing the same. it is necessary to consider in connection therewith at least a portion of the article of which this section is a part, and particularly section 3434, which is as follows:
¶3 It will be noted that by the provisions of the above sections there is a concurring obligation on the part of an insurance, company doing business in the state and agents soliciting risks for it: First, upon the company to procure and pay for a license for its agents, which license is a written authority of such agents soliciting and procuring risks, and prohibiting companies from making contracts of insurance upon lives, property, or interest except through lawfully constituted and licensed resident agents, and upon agents to have this license before soliciting risks for insurance companies, and fixing personal liability upon an agent if he assumes to act without such license. It is our view that the statutes relied upon by the plaintiff do not support its contention, and were enacted by the state, not for the protection and regulation of the intercourse of insurance companies and their agents, or to fix their contractual relations, but for the protection of the insuring public. An insurance company doing business in the state certainly could not violate the statute by failing to procure and pay for a license for its agents, and accept risks from unlicensed agents, and then invoke the provisions of the same law to establish the fact of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kendrick v. Healy
... ... as to their right of possession. ( Kahn v. Ins. Co., ... 4 Wyo. 419); plaintiff was allowed $ 845.00 for 13 head of ... 744; Gibson v. McLane, 17 Ariz. 61, 148 ... P. 288; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Kramer, (Okla.) 65 ... Okla. 165, 165 P. 179) ... ...
-
Lillard v. Meisberger
...that is, no judgment was rendered by the court on the verdict of the jury in so far as the record discloses. In Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Kramer, 65 Okla. 165, 165 P. 179, this court held that: ¶7 Under subsection 2, section 780, Compiled Oklahoma Statutes, 1921, "this court has jurisdict......
-
Settle v. Crawford
...City of Newkirk v. Dimmers, 17 Okla. 525, 87 P. 603; Pressley v. Inc. Town of Sallisaw, 54 Okla. 747, 154 P. 660; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Kramer, 65 Okla. 165, 165 P. 179. In Sawyer v. Brown, 108 Okla. 265, 236 P. 404, the judgment was reversed and the cause was remanded with directions to g......
-
Sawyer v. Brown
...from opinions in criminal cases, but the same rule seems to prevail in this state as applied to civil causes. In Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Kramer, 65 Okla. 165, 165 P. 179, in the third paragraph of the syllabus thereof, this court made use of the following language: "Trial courts in the ......