Mississippi Elec. Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 20 October 1913
• Docket Number: 15,997
• Citation: 105 Miss. 767,63 So. 231
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: MISSISSIPPI ELECTRIC CO. v. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO

63 So. 231

105 Miss. 767

MISSISSIPPI ELECTRIC CO. v. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO

No. 15,997

Supreme Court of Mississippi

October 20, 1913

APPEAL from the chancery court of Warren county, HON. E. N. THOMAS Chancellor.

Suit by the Mississippi Electric Company against the Hartford Fire Insurance Company. From a decree for defendant, complainant appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Affirmed.

Hirsh Dent & Landan, attorneys for appellant.

McLaurin Armistead & Brien, attorneys for appellee.

Counsel on both sides filed elaborate briefs too long for publication.

Argued orally by Jos. Hirsch for appellant and A. A. Armistead, for appellee.

OPINION

COOK, J.

Appellant begun this action in the chancery court of Warren count by bill asking the reformation of a certain insurance policy issued by the Vicksburg agency of appellee. The chancellor, after hearing full proof, denied the relief prayed for, and dismissed the bill.

The allegations of the bill, if true, would entitle appellant to relief; but appellee, in its answer, denied all the allegations of the bill, and, upon the evidence, the chancellor entered the decree. We believe it to be unnecessary to review the evidence offered by appellant, because we think the allegations of the bill were supported by evidence, and the chancellor would have been warranted in granting the prayer of the bill. This being the case, we will consider the case from appellee's standpoint, for the purpose of testing the conclusions reached by the trial court.

It appears that appellant was engaged in the public business of running automobiles for hire, and had obtained from the Wilkerson Insurance Agency, of Vicksburg, a policy insuring a certain White Steamer automobile from loss by fire. This risk was originally written in the Firemen's Fund Insurance Company, for the sum of two thousand dollars; but the company, for some reason, ordered its agency to cancel the same. The Wilkerson Agency did not represent any company which would rewrite this risk; so, in accordance with a custom, or understanding, between the insurance agents of Vicksburg, the Wilkerson Agency solicited the Flowers Agency, the regular agents of appellee in Vicksburg, to issue a policy covering this machine. A policy was issued in the Hartford Company, and was delivered to the Wilkerson Agency, and by them delivered to appellant. When the policy was delivered to the appellant, it had Wilkerson's "sticker" on it, which was, in effect, the business card of the Wilkerson Agency. The Wilkerson Agency paid the premium, and, by a custom of dealing between the insurance agents of Vicksburg, the Flowers Agency divided their commissions with them. When the policy was delivered by appellee's agency to the Wilkerson Agency, it was not read by the Flowers Agency, but was in turn delivered by them to appellant, who also failed to examine same until the fire, occurring about six months thereafter.

It is the contention of appellant that the contract made by them was for a policy exactly like the one canceled, and that the Hartford Company agreed to write this kind of policy, but by mistake a different policy was written, and this policy did not cover the loss. In order to maintain this contention, it is insisted that the dealings between the Wilkerson Agency and the Flowers Agency made the Wilkerson Agency the agent of the Hartford Insurance...