Hall v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 December 1900
• Citation: 23 Wash. 610,63 P. 505
• Parties: HALL v. UNION CENT. LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

63 P. 505

23 Wash. 610

HALL v. UNION CENT. LIFE INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 27, 1900

Appeal from superior court, King county; E. D. Benson, Judge.

Action by Wisa H. Hall against the Union Central Life Insurance Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

John E. Humphries and Harrison Bostwick, for appellant.

Martin Joslin & Griffin, for respondent.

DUNBAR C.J.

This is an action by the respondent against the appellant on a policy of insurance issued upon the life of her husband, George E Hall, deceased. On a trial by jury, verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the amount sued for, and judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict, from which this appeal is taken.

There are some 21 assignments of error set forth in appellant's brief, the most of which are discussable under the second and third assignments, viz. that the court erred in denying the motion of appellant for nonsuit, and that the court erred in denying the motion of appellant in the challenge to the whole evidence, and in not taking the case from the jury. The substance of these objections might have been raised on error alleged in allowing incompetent testimony. It is contended by the appellant that defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the testimony ought to have been sustained for the reason that there was no testimony that the deceased had complied with the provisions and conditions of the policy; the only testimony introduced being declarations and admissions of one John Doser, who, it is admitted by the appellant, had formerly been a district agent for the appellant, and who, it is maintained by the respondent, was the agent at the time the declarations were made. Many authorities are cited by the appellant to sustain the proposition that the admissions of a discharged agent are not competent evidence to bind such agent's former principal. Conceding, for the purpose of this investigation, the correctness of the rule contended for, the cases are not applicable to the facts proven in this case, as determined by the jury. As to the existence of Doser's agency, the plaintiff showed his appointment by the company and there was no proof that such agency had been revoked. Under the rule that, where an agency is shown to exist, it will be presumed to continue until the contrary is proved, it must be concluded that Doser was the agent of the company at the time these alleged admissions were made. His first appointment was made in December, 1896, and was to continue for 10 years, unless terminated by service of notice upon him by the company. If there is anything in the proof that would indicate that he had been removed, it would be his second appointment in December, 1898, where he is appointed by P. F Leavy, general agent of the Union Central Life Insurance Company; and it is not shown that this appointment was revoked prior to the time the alleged declarations were made. We think sufficient evidence went to the jury to sustain the verdict on that ground. In any event, the testimony shows that the company held him out as an agent, and it is bound by his acts. But it is contended by the appellant that these admissions, if made, were not of the res gestae, were not within the scope of the agent's authority, and were mere hearsay; and many cases are cited in support of the contention that the admission of an agent must be made at the time of the contract. We do not think these cases are applicable to the case at bar. Doser's admissions were not with reference to the making or effect of any contract, but with relation to the payment of the premiums during the decedent's...