Lagrone v. Timmerman

• Citation: 24 S.E. 290,46 S.C. 372
• Parties: LAGRONE v. TIMMERMAN et al. (two cases).
• Decision Date: 26 March 1896
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

24 S.E. 290

46 S.C. 372

LAGRONE v. TIMMERMAN et al. (two cases).

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 26, 1896

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Edgefield county; J. H Earle, Judge.

Respective actions by D. P. and J. H. Lagrone, against joint defendants W. H. Timmerman, J. S.C. Carpenter, and J. W. Hardy, on fire insurance policies, heard together. From judgments in favor of plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Both affirmed the charge of Judge Earle was as follows:

"It is very pleasant to you, doubtless, as I know it is to me to listen to the eloquent arguments of counsel, and judges as well as juries are more or less affected by them. It is their province to present the case for their clients, and in this cause each side has been presented well. It now becomes our duty to decide the case. It is my province to pass upon the law of the case. You are to take the law from the bench. If I should be mistaken in what I say to you there is another court where my rulings can be reconsidered, and, if any injustice results, that can be corrected. But it is for you to consider the facts uninfluenced by anything I might say to you, even if I were disposed to say anything to you. I have no right to express any opinion about any of the facts of the case. They are for you, and exclusively for you.

"Now, the issues are presented by the pleadings. The plaintiff comes into court, and in this paper presents his cause of action. What does the tell you? He tells you, in substance, that on the 9th of October, 1893, the defendant J. W. Hardy, representing himself as soliciting agent of a corporation he styled as the Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance Association of the County of Edgefield, induced the plaintiff to take out an insurance policy in said alleged corporation, covering the plaintiff's gin house and machinery, for the sum of five hundred dollars, against loss by fire, which, by the terms of said pretended policy, was insured from said date, until the said policy should be canceled by the plaintiff or by the said pretended association, the plaintiff paying a premium of $2.50 for said policy of insurance, and being, by the terms thereof, subject to further assessment for losses incurred by said company, it being represented that said association was a mutual fire insurance company. The plaintiff further alleges that said defendants caused to be issued to him said policy of insurance, where in the defendant W. H. Timmerman signed, styling himself as president, the defendant J. S.C. Carpenter signed, styling himself as general agent of said company, and the defendant J. W. Hardy representing himself as the soliciting agent of said company. The plaintiff further alleges that he took the policy as a genuine policy, and thereafter, within the time limited, his property was consumed by fire,--his gin house and machinery, --and that he lays his damages caused by the fire in the amount of five hundred dollars, for which he prays judgment.

"Now, the defendants, on their part, come into court, and by their answer they represent to the court their side of the case. In the first place, they deny what the plaintiff says, except so far as their answer admits the allegations of the complaint; and they say to you 'that, under and by virtue of an act of the general assembly of this state, approved December 18, 1891, entitled "An act to incorporate the Farmers' Mutual Insurance Association of Chester, S. C.," J. S.C. Carpenter, R. T. Mockbee, W. O. Guy, O. Barber, and all other persons who shall become members thereof were constituted a body politic and corporate, under the name of the Farmers' Mutual Insurance Association of Chester, S. C., and under that name shall have all the powers, privileges, and franchises incident to such corporations under the laws of this state.' And thereafter certain provisions of that act are set out in the answer. They say. 'That, on the ___ day of December, 1891, at the town of Edgefield, in the county of Edgefield, in the state aforesaid, under and by virtue of the power and authority conferred by said act of the general assembly of said state and the by-laws of said corporation hereinbefore set forth, J. S.C. Carpenter, the general agent of said corporation, proceeded to organize, and did organize, a subordinate or branch organization of the said the Farmers' Mutual Insurance Association of Chester, S. C., for the county of Edgefield, and the defendant W. H. Timmerman was chosen president, and J. S.C. Carpenter was chosen general agent, of said subordinate organization.' Then they further allege: 'That, on or about the 9th day of October, 1893, a policy of insurance was issued to the plaintiff in said the Farmers' Mutual Insurance Association of Chester, S. C., by the said subordinate organization for the county of Edgefield, covering the plaintiff's gin house and machinery, and thereby said association and the plaintiff, who signed said policy, became mutually bound by the terms, limitations, and conditions therein contained, and the by-laws of said association, made a part thereof, and said policy of insurance was in all respects a valid and binding contract of insurance, according to the terms thereof, and the loss sustained by plaintiff would long since have been paid, if he had been, at law or in equity, entitled to same under the terms of said policy.' Then they say that one of the by-laws of that company provided: 'The agent shall take no steam engine into this association. If a gin house or other buildings be taken into this association, which shall at intervals be operated by steam, the insurance on such building or buildings adjacent and endangered thereby shall be removed, so long as it is operated; but, the steam being removed from such building, the policy shall again become intact. That the property covered by said policy insurance was a gin house and machinery, operated by steam at intervals, and the said property was destroyed by fire when the same was being operated by steam; and, under the terms of said policy of insurance, and the aforesaid by-laws, being a part and parcel thereof, the insurance was removed at the time said property was destroyed by fire, and the plaintiff was not entitled to anything, at law or in equity, under said policy, and for that reason alone he was not paid the amount specified in said policy or any sum whatever.'

"Now, then, as an amendment to the answer, they raise further issue: ' For a further defense, the defendants allege that, when the policy of insurance described in the complaint was issued to the plaintiff, it was mutually understood by both parties thereto that it was The Farmers' Mutual Insurance Association of Chester, S. C., operating in Edgefield county, through its subordinate branch in said county, that was being bound, and the corporation therein referred to, and that, by the use of the words, "The Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance Association of South Carolina," and "The Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance Association for the County of Edgefield," used in said policy, were put there by mutual error and mistake of the parties, each of whom, at the time of the issuance of said policy, well knowing that The Farmers' Mutual Insurance Association of Chester, S. C., operating in Edgefield county, through its said subordinate branch, was the insurance company bound thereby, and was named and called by all parties thereto as "The Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance Association of South Carolina," and "The Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance Association for the County of Edgefield," and that, in using the latter words, the parties thereto meant The Farmers' Mutual Insurance Association of Chester, S. C., operating in Edgefield county, through its said subordinate branch, and, that it thereby became liable on said insurance contract.'

"Those are the issues presented which have been formulated by the parties in their pleadings which have been read to you. Now, gentlemen of the jury, the plaintiff claims that he was misled by the defendants, that the defendants represented that they were acting as agents of a corporation, and that, when he took out this policy, he believed he was taking out a policy issued by a corporation. Now, what is a corporation? It is an artificial being, created by the legislature, where several persons petition that they be allowed to transact any kind of business as one person; that they and their successors shall continue as one person in law. No matter how many person come in, and how many members go out, it still remains an artificial being. As some one has said, like the river Thames, although it changes every minute, it is the same river. It is an artificial being, created by statute, created by the legislature, and having only such powers as are expressly granted in the charter, in the act of the legislature, or as are by implication necessary to carry out the powers that are so granted. By referring to the act of the legislature by which the Chester Company was created, they say that the Chester Company could not organize a corporation in the county of Edgefield,--had no such power; that the act did not give it to them; and, furthermore, if the act did give it to them, it would be unconstitutional, because, while the legislature has the power to create a corporation, it could not delegate that power to a corporation. So far as that part of the answer is concerned, you may eliminate it. They are not protected by the charter granted to the Chester Company. I do not think there is any doubt about that.

"But they say, at the time this policy was issued, that they intended to insure under the power granted by the legislature to the Chester Company, their intention being now to act as agents of that company, being duly authorized by law,

...