Johnson v. White

• Decision Date: 12 August 1904
• Citation: 48 S.E. 426,120 Ga. 1010
• Parties: JOHNSON et al. v. WHITE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

48 S.E. 426

120 Ga. 1010

JOHNSON et al.

v.WHITE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Aug. 12, 1904.

INSURANCE — APPLICATION — MISREPRESENTATIONS OF AGENT—DEFENSE TO PREMIUM NOTE.

1. Where an applicant for a life insurance policy, though able to read, and though having full opportunity to examine the written application presented by the soliciting agent for his signature, signed the same without reading it, relying on false representations made by such agent as to certain privileges which the insurance company would accord him if he procured the policy, and the policy subsequently issued and delivered to him was one corresponding with the kind for which the written application called, the applicant cannot, as against a general agent of the company, who stands in the position of a bona fide holder of a promissory note given in payment of the first premium on the policy, set up the defense that, by reason of the fraudulent misrepresentations above referred to, made to him by the soliciting agent, he was induced to sign an application which he reallv did not intend to make. Shedden v. Heard, 35 S. E. 707, 110 Ga. 461; Id., 38 S. E. 387. 113 Ga. 162.

2. When a policy of insurance duly delivered to the applicant differs materially from the kind of policy for which he applied or intended to apply, it is his duty, if he does not desire to accept the policy issued to him, to return or offer to return the same, within a reasonable time, to the company, or an agent thereof authorized to receive it; and if the applicant neglects to examine the policy delivered to him, or for any other inexcusable cause fails to comply with the legal obligation resting upon him with respect to surrendering the policy with due promptitude, he cannot avoid payment of a promissory note given by him for the first premium on the policy. Leigh v. Brown, 25 S. E. 621, 99 Ga. 258.

3. The present case is governed by the familiar propositions of law above announced, and accordingly the trial judge did not, in view of the evidence on which the defendants relied as sup porting their defense, err in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. (Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Clayton County; L. S. Roan, Judge.

Action between J. F. E. Johnson and others and W. Woods White. From the judgment, Johnson and others bring error. Affirmed.

Joseph W. & Jno. D. Humphries, for plaintiffs in error.

Walter T. Colquitt and Culberson & Johnson, for defendant in error.

EVANS, J. Judgment affirmed. All...