Heard v. Shedden
| Decision Date | 28 March 1901 |
| Citation | 113 Ga. 162,38 S.E. 387 |
| Parties | HEARD . v. SHEDDEN. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
NOTE—RONA FIDE HOLDER—INSURANCE POLICY—EVIDENCE—DIRECTING VERDICT.
1. Where one makes written application for a policy of life insurance, and executes a prom-issory note, the proceeds of which are used to pay the first premium, and the purchaser of the note takes it with notice that the policy has not at that time been issued, such purchaser, though he purchased the note for value and before maturity, incurs the risk of a possible failure of the company to deliver to the maker such a policy as is described in the application.
2. In determining the question as to whether the policy issued is in accord with that described in the application, representations made to the applicant by certain agents of the company, without the knowledge of the purchaser, as to the meaning of certain technical terms in the application, are inadmissible.
3. The purchaser of the note cannot be affected by any nqtice of fraud or misrepresentations as to the meaning of the application, when such notice is not given until after he has become the holder of the note.
4. The evidence showing without contradiction that the policy issued to the defendant was in exact accord with that described in his written application, and the plaintiff being without notice, at the time he purchased the note, of any misrepresentations as to the meaning of the application, it was proper to direct a verdict for the plaintiff.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Wilkes county; S. Reese, Judge.
Action by R. F. Shedden against M. L. Heard, Jr. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Oolley & Sims, for plaintiff in error.
Saml. H. Sibley, for defendant in error.
P. Shedden against Heard on a promissory note payable "to the order of myself, " signed by the defendant, and indorsed by the defendant and by Byington and Hodgson. The defendant admitted the execution of the note, and that it was past due and unpaid. He denied, however, that the plaintiff was a bona fide holder for value, and set up as a defense that the note was given in settlement of the first premium on a policy of life insurance; that the note was given before the policy was delivered; that the note was indorsed to Shedden before the delivery of the policy; that Shedden had notice of this at the time of the indorsement; and that there had been a failure of consideration, in that the policy issued and delivered to defendant was not the policy for which he contracted. The case was tried, and a verdict directed for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted, and this court reversed the judgment of the lower court. Shedden v. Heard, 110 Ga. 461, 35 S. E. 707. Upon the second trial in the lower court a verdict was directed for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted, and assigned error upon the direction of the verdict, and upon certain rulings of the court, made during the trial, rejecting evidence offered by the defendant. Upon the trial it was shown by competent evidence that the note sued on had been executed by the defendant to cover the first premium upon a policy of life insurance for which he had made written ap plication. The plaintiff was the general agent for this state of the company to which the application for insurance was made, Hodgson and Byington being the local agents through whom the defendant made his application. These local agents had no power to issue policies, make rates, or close contracts, but merely to solicit and forward applications, which were to be passed upon and accepted or rejected by the company. The company did not accept notes in payment of premiums, but required the payment to be made in cash. The defendant's signed application, together with his note, was forwarded by the local agents to the plaintiff. He, acting not as agent of the insurance company, but In his individual capacity, discounted the note. He then forwarded the application, with the cash proceeds of the note, to the company. This was before the maturity of the note. The company issued a policy of insurance, which was forwarded through the plaintiff and the local agents, to the defendant. He returned it on the ground...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Perry
...1(2), 169 S.E.2d 342; Massey v. Cotton States Life Ins. Co., 70 Ga. 794; Shedden v. Heard, 110 Ga. 461(2), 35 S.E. 707; Heard v. Shedden, 113 Ga. 162(2), 38 S.E. 387; Johnson v. White, 120 Ga. 1010, 48 S.E. 426; Stillson v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 202 Ga. 79, 42 S.E.2d Insurance is ......