American Ins. Union v. Wilson
Decision Date | 07 February 1927 |
Docket Number | (No. 165.) |
Citation | 291 S.W. 417 |
Parties | AMERICAN INS. UNION v. WILSON. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; W. A. Speer, Judge.
Suit by C. C. Wilson against the American Insurance Union. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Judgment reversed, and cause dismissed.
C. C. Wilson sued the American Insurance Union to recover the sum of $636.65, alleged to be due him upon a life insurance policy. The suit was defended upon the ground that the defendant only owed the plaintiff the sum of $363.35 under the terms of the policy; that the defendant had paid the plaintiff this sum of money; and that the latter had accepted it as payment in full of his claim against the former.
The record shows that W. A. Wilson obtained a benefit certificate of life insurance from the Mutual Relief Union of Ft. Smith, Ark., on October 10, 1916. On April 1, 1918, said company merged with the Home Protective Association of Springdale, Ark., while W. A. Wilson was still a member. By the terms of the merger, the Home Protective Association assumed liability under the certificates of the Mutual Relief Union. On November 1, 1918, the Home Protective Association was merged into the American Insurance Union. A contract was entered into by these two companies, which provided, among other things, that the American Insurance Union should not be liable to the holders of benefit certificates in the Home Protective Association in excess of the net amount realized from one assessment on the members of the roll of which he was a member in the Home Protective Association, after deducting his proportionate share of the expense of operation.
According to the evidence of the defendant, a copy of this agreement fixing the liability of the American Insurance Union to the owners of benefit certificates of the Home Protective Association was mailed to the owners of certificates in the Home Protective Association. The American Insurance Union sent a copy of said contract to W. A. Wilson for the purpose of attaching the same to his benefit certificate and becoming a part thereof.
According to the testimony of C. C. Wilson, W. A. Wilson was his father, and lived with him at the time the defendant claims to have sent said contract to be attached to his benefit certificate. The plaintiff opened all his father's mail, and knows that he did not receive said contract.
After W. A. Wilson died, proof of his death was made to the American Insurance Union by C. C. Wilson, the beneficiary named in the policy. On February 21, 1923, the American Insurance Union mailed a check from its home office at Columbus, Ohio, to C. C. Wilson of Tinsman, Ark., the body of which is as follows:
This check was inclosed with a letter of the same date which is as follows:
C. C. Wilson received the check and the letter accompanying it, and wrote to the American Insurance Union that he could not accept the check in full payment of the amount due him under the benefit certificate, but that he would accept it as part payment due on his policy of $1,000, and on the same day cashed the check and converted the proceeds to his own use. This letter was written about five days after he had received the check from the defendant. When the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Browning v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the United States
... ... permit of no other construction. Irwin v ... Travelers' Ins. Co. , 243 A.D. 377, 277 N.Y.S ... 724; Dietlin v. Missouri State ... 15, 14 P.2d 331, 15 P.2d 188; ... Dietlin v. General American Life Ins. Co. , ... 4 Cal.2d 336, 49 P.2d 590; Id. (Cal. App.) 41 P.2d ... Co. , 107 ... Vt. 99, 176 A. 305, or of American Ins. Union v ... Wilson , 172 Ark. 841, 291 S.W. 417, in which cases ... there ... ...
-
Market Produce Co. v. Holland
...327, 190 S. W. 571; O'Leary v. Keith, 134 Ark. 36, 203 S. W. 38; Beeson v. Brewer, 158 Ark. 512, 250 S. W. 518; American Ins. Union v. Wilson, 172 Ark. 841, 291 S. W. 417. We conclude, therefore, that under the undisputed evidence in this case the verdict should have been directed in appell......