City of New York Ins. Co. v. Greenwood International Co
| Decision Date | 11 June 1934 |
| Docket Number | 31305 |
| Citation | 170 Miss. 644,155 So. 346 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | CITY OF NEW YORK INS. CO. et al. v. GREENWOOD INTERNATIONAL CO |
Suggestion Of Error Overruled September 11, 1934.
APPEAL from circuit court of Leflore county HON. S. F. DAVIS, Judge.
Action by the Greenwood International Company against the City of New York Insurance Company and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed and rendered.
Reversed, and judgment here for appellants.
Ward Allen, of Greenwood, and Butler & Snow, of Jackson, for appellants.
Appellants are not bound to appellee upon the contract made with appellee by appellants' agent for the reason that the agent was acting adversely to appellants' interests and in furtherance of the interests of appellee, third parties and his personal interests, all of which was at the time unknown to appellants and known to appellee.
2 C J., Agency, page 837, sec. 519, pages 868-869, sec. 549; 21 R. C. L., Principal and Agent, page 844, sec. 24.
The court erred in excluding from the record the evidence offered by appellants to show that their agent failed to pay to them any portion of the premium money collected from appellee.
The contract sued on is void and the parties are in pari delicto by reason of the fact that a portion of the premium paid appellants' agent by appellee was rebated to appellee and appellee was given special benefits, etc., as inducements to enter into said contracts of insurance in violation of section 5319, Mississippi Code of 1930.
13 C. J., Contracts, pages 492-496, sec. 440, page 497, sec. 441; 32 C. J., Insurance, page 1194-1195, sec. 325; Wooten et al. v. Miller, 15 Miss. 380, 7 Smedes & Marshall, 380; Hoover v. Pierce, 26 Miss. 627; Deans v. McLendon, 30 Miss. 343; Walton v. Tusten et al., 49 Miss. 569; McWilliams, County Treasurer, v. Phillipps, 51 Miss. 196; Woodson v. Hopkins, 85 Miss. 171, 37 So. 100, 38 So. 298, 107 Am. St. Rep. 275, 70 L. R. A. 645; Bellew v. Williams, 109 Miss. 74, 67 So. 849; Mitchell v. Campbell, 111 Miss. 806, 72 So. 231; Rideout v. Mars, 99 Miss. 199, 54 So. 801, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 485, Ann. Cas. 1913C 770.
Pollard & Hamner, of Greenwood, for appellee.
Where an agent of an insurance company inspects a risk, issues and delivers the policy of insurance for his principal and collects the premium due upon the policy, he is the general agent of the company and his knowledge is the knowledge of his principal. In other words, what he does his principal does.
Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Loving, 163 Miss. 119, 140 So. 727; Big Creek Drug Co. v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co., 115 Miss. 333, 75 So. 768; Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 120 Miss. 278, 82 So. 146; Lamar Life Ins. Co. v. Kemp, 154 Miss. 890, 124 So. 62; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Clark 154 Miss. 418, 122 So. 551; Interstate Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Ruble, 160 Miss. 206, 133 So. 223.
Inasmuch as the supreme court of Mississippi has decided that payment to the agent is payment to the principal, the lower court was eminently correct in excluding evidence that Price James & Company, Incorporated, failed to pay the premiums collected to his principal.
Coming to the second defense that a rebate was given by appellant's agent to appellee and appellee was given special benefits, etc., in violation of section 5319, Mississippi Code of 1930, we meet the decision of the county judge sitting as a jury holding as a conclusion of fact from the evidence that there was no rebate and this finding of facts will not be disturbed.
Viewed from the most extreme position it cannot be said that the Greenwood International Company got the two insurance policies for less than four hundred thirty-seven dollars and fifty cents each. In other words, there was no discrimination in favor of the Greenwood International Company by writing its policy for less than a full premium as there was in the Rideout case, 99 Miss. 199, 54 So. 801, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 485, Ann. Cas. 1913C 770.
Interstate Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Ruble, 160 Miss. 206, 133. So. 223.
The return to an applicant for life insurance by the agent as a part of his commission is not within the operation of a statute forbidding life insurance companies to make discriminations in favor of particular persons in rates charged for insurance, and further providing that no company or agent shall pay or allow, as an inducement to insurance, any rebate of premium payable on the policy, or any valuable consideration or inducement whatever not specified in the policy.
Interstate Life Ins. Co. v. Dalton, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 722.
On August 6, 1931, Price James & Co., Incorporated, was the agent in Greenwood of appellant insurance companies, and appellee was the lessee of a certain brick store building in said city, which building appellee was obliged to keep insured. Policies of insurance in other companies then existed for twenty thousand dollars, expiring on October 25 1931. On the date first aforesaid the said insurance agency approached appellee and proposed that, if appellee would consent to take two ten thousand dollar insurance policies with the two companies represented by said agency, and on which the established lawful premium would be four hundred thirty-seven dollars and fifty cents each, the agency would pay to appellee in cash four hundred fifty dollars to be applied on a certain open account and note past due to appellee by a third party named. Appellee accepted said proposition and the inducement thereby offered, and on...
To continue reading
Request your trial