Haskin v. Agricultural Fire Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 13 March 1884 |
| Citation | 78 Va. 700 |
| Parties | HASKIN v. AGRICULTURAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Appeal from decree of chancery court of Richmond city, pronounced June 29th, 1880, in a cause wherein A. N. Haskin was complainant, and the Agricultural Fire Insurance Company of Watertown, New York, was defendant, for the specific performance of an alleged contract for the insurance of a barn and peanuts. The cause was heard on bill, answer and depositions and dismissed, with costs to the defendant. From the decree said Haskin obtained an appeal to this court.
Opinion states the facts.
Friend & Davis, for the appellant.
J B. Young, for the appellee.
The case is as follows: The appellant claims that on the 10th day of December, 1879, he contracted with the appellee to insure his barn in the county of Sussex, Virginia, together with peanuts stored therein, the risk on both barn and peanuts to commence on that day; that the premium notes were agreed and were to be paid on request; that in consideration of the sum so agreed to be paid, the said company agreed to insure him against loss or damage by fire; that on the 22d of December the said property so agreed to be insured was totally destroyed by fire without fault on the part of the plaintiff; that the plaintiff then paid the agent of the company the premiums and took his receipt therefor; that the defendant company refused to deliver the policies or to pay his losses. The suit is for specific performance, that the defendant company may be compelled to pay these losses.
The defendant company, on the other hand, positively denies all the allegations of the plaintiff; denies that it ever made or entered into any contract of insurance with the plaintiff; that it ever promised or agreed with the plaintiff to issue and deliver to him a policy of insurance in conformity with any such alleged agreement.
It avers that one Brooke Pleasants, a solicitor of insurance, without any authority to make contracts or to issue policies of insurance for the said company, saw the plaintiff in the month of November, 1879, in reference to insuring any farm buildings he might have in the said company; that the plaintiff inquired of said solicitor what would be the rate of premium charged by said company on a dwelling and barn, with small engine attached, and stables, in Sussex county. The said solicitor, not knowing himself the rate of said insurance, agreed to write, and did write accordingly to the State agent of the said company in the city of Richmond for information as to such rates, and received from said agent a reply stating the rates at which such property could be insured in said company. The substance of the reply of the State agent as to such rates was communicated by said solicitor to the said plaintiff, and at a subsequent interview between the said solicitor and the said plaintiff, the latter expressed his willingness to have a portion of the property above referred to insured--to-wit: the barn and some peanuts therein--but said that he had no money then to pay the insurance premium thereon. The said solicitor, not being able to give the complainant information as to the legal effect upon the validity of an insurance, if there was a failure to prepay the premiums, the matter was for the time dropped or suspended. No application for insurance was then prepared or transmitted by said solicitor to the State agent in Richmond on behalf of the complainant, nor did the State agent know, until after the property in question had been burned, that the complainant was the person in whose behalf said enquiries as to rates had been made.
Thus the matter rested until the barn and the peanuts had been totally consumed by fire on the night of the 22d of December, 1879. The complainant learned of the fire in the forenoon of December, 23d, the next day, and forthwith commenced looking for the said solicitor, the residence of both being in or near the city of Petersburg, with the object of attempting to avail himself of what had passed between them previously, for the purpose of perfecting a policy of insurance on the property already destroyed by fire, before the fact of the destruction of the property by fire had become known to the said solicitor or to the State agent of said company at Richmond. The complainant having found the solicitor on that day, stated to him that he had now obtained the money necessary to pay the premium of said insurance on said property and desired to obtain a policy or policies therefor.
The said solicitor then made the usual memorandum for an application on behalf of the complainant for the issuing of a policy or policies on the property to be insured, and forwarded the application to the State agent at Richmond, with the request, at the instance and request of the plaintiff, that the policies should relate back to the 10th day of December, 1879, which said plaintiff said was the date of the last interview between him and the said solicitor.
The policies were made out and forwarded to the solicitor, with directions not to deliver them until further information was had as to the location of the steam engine attached to the barn. The policies were rejected by the plaintiff because of the statement contained therein that there was no encumbrance on the property, and were returned. The policies, at the request of the plaintiff, were returned by the solicitor to the State agent for correction. The solicitor then learned from the plaintiff that the property had been destroyed by fire. The solicitor returned the policies to the State agent at Richmond, with the information that before the application was made, and before the premium was paid, the property had been totally destroyed by fire; whereupon, the said State agent at Richmond retained the policies, and refused to deliver them. And that there never was any contract made for the insurance of his property which was binding on either the plaintiff or the defendant company while the said property was in existence.
Testimony was taken in the cause on both sides, and upon the hearing on the 29th day of June, 1880, the chancery court dismissed ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Savage v. Prudential Life Ins. Co. of America
... ... 568; Dyer v. Mo. State Life ... Insurance Co., 232 P. 346; Wallace v. Hartford Fire ... Insurance Co. ( Id .), 174 P. 1009; Jackson et al ... v. New York Life Insurance Co., 7 ... Mutual Ins. Co. v. Rudolph (1876), 45 Tex. 454 ... Virginia--Haskin ... v. Agricultural Fire Ins. Co. (1884), 78 Va. 700; Haden ... v. Farmers & M. Fire Asso ... ...
-
Price v. Lloyd
...If the evidence is conflicting and it is not clear that a contract was in fact made, a bill for specific performance will be dismissed." (78 Va. 700; Munf. 185; 14 W.Va. 397; Gallagher v. Gallagher, 5 S.E. 297.) The donee must have taken possession pursuant to, and in reliance upon, the gif......
-
Western Assurance Company v. McAlpin
... ... against loss and damage by fire; that while the agreement was ... in force the property burned; that ... with the complaint. Thus in New England Ins. Co. v ... Robinson, 25 Ind. 536, it [23 Ind.App. 223] is said: ... complete contract to insure. Haskin v ... Agricultural Ins. Co., 78 Va. 700; McCann ... v. Aetna Ins. Co., ... ...
-
Rison v. Newberry.1
...most advantageous. The case of Iron Co. v. Gardiner, 79 Va. 305, is very much in point. Railroad Co. v. Lewis', 76 Va. S33; Haskin v. Insurance Co., 78 Va. 700; Ferry v. Clarke, 77 Va. 397; 2 Lomax, Dig. p. 108; Panitt v. McKinley, 9 Grat. 1; Robertson v. Hogsheads, 3 Leigh, 667; 1 Story, E......