Atlanta Life Ins. Co. v. Canady, 6 Div. 180.

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtKNIGHT, J.
Citation225 Ala. 377,143 So. 561
PartiesATLANTA LIFE INS. CO. v. CANADY.
Docket Number6 Div. 180.
Decision Date06 October 1932

143 So. 561

225 Ala. 377

ATLANTA LIFE INS. CO.
v.
CANADY.

6 Div. 180.

Supreme Court of Alabama

October 6, 1932


Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; C. B. Smith, Judge.

Action by Easter Canady against the Atlanta Life Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals.

Affirmed.

Jim Davis, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Rosenthal & Rosenthal, of Birmingham, for appellee.

KNIGHT, J.

Suit by Easter Canady against Atlanta Life Insurance Company. As originally filed, the complaint consisted of two counts. The first count was in Code form on a policy of life insurance issued by the appellant, insuring the life of Robert Canady, with the appellee, the insured's mother, as the beneficiary. The second count was for money had and received, and was also in Code form. The plaintiff subsequently amended her complaint by adding counts 3 and 4, and by striking [143 So. 562] from the complaint counts 1 and 2. In the third count, added by amendment, the appellee sought to recover of the defendant, Atlanta Life Insurance Company, the sum of $372, alleged to be due the plaintiff by account on the 15th day of July, 1930. In the fourth count, the plaintiff sought to recover of the defendant the sum of $372 for money had and received by defendant for the use of the plaintiff on, to wit, July 15, 1930.

The defendant filed to the complaint, and to each count, separately and severally, ten pleas. There was a demurrer by the plaintiff to all pleas, except to plea 1, which was a plea of tender, and was substantially in Code form. The court sustained plaintiff's demurrer to pleas 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10, thus leaving in the case pleas 1, 7, and 9, and upon these pleas issue was joined.

The plaintiff's testimony tended to show that the defendant issued a policy of insurance on the life of her son, Robert Canady, payable on the death of the insured to plaintiff. That this policy was issued and dated August 20, 1928, and that plaintiff paid the company's collecting agent 15 cents each week as the premium on said policy. That after this policy had been issued, and while it was in force, the appellant company wrote a new policy on the life of appellee's son, whereby upon death of the insured, the beneficiary was to be paid $372. The premium on the new policy was 20 cents per week. The plaintiff's testimony further tended to show that at the time of her son's death she had been in possession of the policy over a year, and had paid all premiums due thereon. The testimony of the plaintiff further tended to show that shortly after the death of her son and while his body was in an undertaker's establishment, plaintiff, in company with a son, went to the office of defendant in Birmingham, Ala., and found in the office three women, and that one of the women, after examining the papers, gave the plaintiff the company's check for $372 in settlement of the claim. That plaintiff left with the defendant the policy, proof of death, and the doctor's certificate, and then plaintiff carried the check to the undertaker, who had the body of plaintiff's son in charge, and presented the check to him, presumably to pay burial expenses. That the undertaker then had a telephone conversation with some one in defendant's office, as a result of which plaintiff was instructed to return to the office. On her return, the plaintiff was required to surrender the check; the defendant's agent saying that it was improperly issued for $372, that the proper amount was $93, one-fourth of the face of the policy, in view of the fact that the insured had died before full six months had elapsed since the policy was issued.

The defendant's testimony tended to show that the first policy issued by it to Robert Canady was a "sick and accident" policy. That Robert Canady paid the premiums, about three in number, and then allowed the contract to lapse. That this policy was not converted into a life policy, and that it was never so converted. That the only life policy issued by the appellant on the life of Robert Canady was issued and dated January 27, 1930. That this policy was numbered 1606593, a copy of which alleged policy was introduced in evidence. One of the clauses of said policy provided that if death of the insured occurred before six months had elapsed that the death benefit would be one-fourth of the face of the policy-the face of the policy was $372. Defendant's testimony further tended to show that, before the suit was brought, the defendant tendered to plaintiff's attorney $93, being one-fourth of the face of the policy, in full settlement of the claim, which was not accepted.

Defendant's testimony further tended to show that no agent or representative of the company had authority to settle or pay death claims in the Birmingham office, but all such claims...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Redwine v. Jackson, 8 Div. 425
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 30, 1950
    ...the competent evidence fully warranted the decree rendered for reasons above stated. Code, § 6565.' (Emphasis supplied) 225 Ala. 402, 143 So. 561. That this court considered the provisions of § 6565 of the Code of 1923 to be applicable to that testimony of a witness incompetent to testify u......
  • Wilkey v. State ex rel. Smith, 6 Div. 603.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • December 21, 1939
    ...that the time, manner and character of said statement was within the discretion of the trial court. In Atlanta Life Ins. Co. v. Canady, 225 Ala. 377, 143 So. 561, it was held that opening statements may disclose the basis of the suit and the source of title. In Prudential Ins. Co. v. Calvin......
  • Daniels v. State, 1 Div. 162.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 21, 1943
    ...In the statement counsel may outline what he expects to prove (Brown v. Leek, 221 Ala. 319, 128 So. 608; Atlanta Life Ins. Co. v. Canady, 225 Ala. 377, 143 So. 561), unless it is manifest that such proof would be incompetent or the offer or statement made for the manifest purpose of creatin......
  • Robinson v. State, 1 Div. 163.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 28, 1943
    ...that the time, manner and character of said statement was within the discretion of the trial court. In Atlanta Life Ins. Co. v. Canady, 225 Ala. 377, 143 So. 561, it was held that opening statements may disclose the basis of the suit and the source of title. In Prudential Ins. Co. v. Calvin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Redwine v. Jackson, 8 Div. 425
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 30, 1950
    ...the competent evidence fully warranted the decree rendered for reasons above stated. Code, § 6565.' (Emphasis supplied) 225 Ala. 402, 143 So. 561. That this court considered the provisions of § 6565 of the Code of 1923 to be applicable to that testimony of a witness incompetent to testify u......
  • Wilkey v. State ex rel. Smith, 6 Div. 603.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • December 21, 1939
    ...that the time, manner and character of said statement was within the discretion of the trial court. In Atlanta Life Ins. Co. v. Canady, 225 Ala. 377, 143 So. 561, it was held that opening statements may disclose the basis of the suit and the source of title. In Prudential Ins. Co. v. Calvin......
  • Daniels v. State, 1 Div. 162.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 21, 1943
    ...In the statement counsel may outline what he expects to prove (Brown v. Leek, 221 Ala. 319, 128 So. 608; Atlanta Life Ins. Co. v. Canady, 225 Ala. 377, 143 So. 561), unless it is manifest that such proof would be incompetent or the offer or statement made for the manifest purpose of creatin......
  • Robinson v. State, 1 Div. 163.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 28, 1943
    ...that the time, manner and character of said statement was within the discretion of the trial court. In Atlanta Life Ins. Co. v. Canady, 225 Ala. 377, 143 So. 561, it was held that opening statements may disclose the basis of the suit and the source of title. In Prudential Ins. Co. v. Calvin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT