Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. King
| Decision Date | 17 May 1895 |
| Citation | 17 So. 707,106 Ala. 519 |
| Parties | HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. v. KING. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Gadsden; John H. Disque, Judge.
Action by T. J. King against the Hartford Fire Insurance Company on a contract of fire insurance. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Goodhue & Sibert, for appellant.
Dortch & Martin, for appellee.
We think the evidence in the record before us presents this case: Blair was the agent of the Hartford Insurance Company at Gadsden, with power to accept propositions for insurance in said company, to receive premiums, to make contracts of insurance, and to issue policies, without referring such applications to the company itself, though, perhaps, policies issued by him were subject to a right of cancellation in the company. King proposed to Blair to insure a certain house in the Hartford company for one year from September 12, 1891 for $600, at a premium of 3 1/2 per cent. This application was made on September 11, 1891, in writing, on a form of the company furnished King by Blair. Upon receipt of it, Blair said that because King's application showed that there was a lien on the house and lot for a balance of purchase money, he could not issue a policy without first having the company's consent, and he advised King that he had forwarded the application to the company, with a letter, in which he informed the company that he would wait "to hear from them before issuing the policy." King's application and Blair's letter reached the company on September 19, 1891, and on the same day the company wrote Blair, acknowledging the receipt of King's application, and his letter, and stating further: "We will allow you to write the desired amount on [King's] building." Blair, on receipt of this letter, wrote out, signed, and mailed to King, on September 22, 1891, a policy of insurance on the property and terms specified in King's application, except that it was made to cover a period of one year, commencing on the day of its date, September 22d, instead of September 12th, as proposed in the application. Meantime, without Blair's knowledge, the property insured was, on the morning of September 21, 1891, destroyed by fire. On these facts, King brings this action to recover $600, not on the policy of insurance, but upon a contract of insurance, or to insure, which he insists was consummated on September 19th, and of which it was intended by the company that the policy to be issued by Blair should be the evidence; but it is further insisted that the policy issued by Blair did not truly evidence said contract in respect of the time at which the period covered by the contract should commence. And upon this theory the city court, without a jury, found for the plaintiff, and entered judgment accordingly.
The question thus presented is as to whether a contract of insurance, or to insure, was consummated between the company and King by the action of the former on September 19th evidenced by its letter to Blair. Counsel for appellant do not at all question the well-established propositions that a contract of this sort may rest in parol; that its existence and efficacy do not depend upon the issuance of that usual muniment of such contracts, called a "policy of insurance," but that, to such ends, "it is sufficient," as said by Judge Bradley, "if one party proposes to be insured, and the other party agrees to insure, and the subject, the period, the amount, and the rate of the insurance are ascertained or understood, and the premium paid, if demanded." Eames v. Insurance Co., 94 U.S. 621, 629. See, also, 1 Bid. Ins. § 140 et seq.; Insurance Co. v. Adler, 71 Ala. 516. But the contention of the appellant is that there was no mutual assent to any contract of insurance until the policy was in fact issued, and that the policy was the only contract. We cannot concur in this view. Every term of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. v. McCree
... ... of cotton which defendant is alleged to have insured against ... loss or injury by fire, and which is alleged to have received ... damage by fire, within the period fixed in the contract ... to issue at the time or "in policies previously used by ... the parties." Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. King, ... 106 Ala. 519, 523, 524, 17 So. 707; Comm. Fire Ins. Co ... v. Morris ... ...
-
Bankers & Shippers Ins. Co. of N. Y. v. Blackwell
...risks; that such verbal contracts can only be thus sustained by then providing the details intended to be included. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. King, 106 Ala. 519, 17 So. 707; Cherokee Life Ins. Co. v. Brannum, 203 Ala. 147, 82 So. But such is not the nature of the verbal matter added to the ......
-
Neff v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
...consideration has been paid nor tendered. Judgment affirmed. 1 Rehearing denied. Transfer to Supreme Court denied. 1 Correct citation, 106 Ala. 519, 17 South. ...
-
Pruitt v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 238
...attest the authenticity of the other.' Royal Exchange Assurance of London v. Almon, 202 Ala. 374, 80 So. 456, 458; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. King, 106 Ala. 519, 17 So. 707; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Tolbert, 10 Cir., 55 F.2d 10; Mead v. Davidson, 3 Ad. & El. 303, 111 Eng. Reprint 428, 4 L.J......