Moseley v. American Nat. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 06 September 1932
• Docket Number: 13474.
• Citation: 166 S.E. 94,167 S.C. 112
• Parties: MOSELEY v. AMERICAN NAT. INS. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

166 S.E. 94

167 S.C. 112

MOSELEY v. AMERICAN NAT. INS. CO.

No. 13474.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

September 6, 1932

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Orangeburg County; B. H Moss, Judge.

Suit by John P. Moseley against the American National Insurance Company. From the judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Wolfe & Wolfe and A. J. Hydrick, all of Orangeburg, for appellant.

Lide & Felder, of Orangeburg, for respondent.

W. C COTHRAN, A. A. J.

In the early part of the year 1929, John P. Moseley, then junior removed from Orangeburg, S. C., to Bay Town, Tex. This town was very near to the town of Goose Creek, Tex., and the duties of young Moseley required him to make frequent visits to Goose Creek. In this way he became acquainted with H. O Hart, the agent for the defendant insurance company, the respondent herein. Quite a friendly association soon existed between the two men; frequently conversations were had; Hart patronized the dry cleaning business of young Moseley; and in due time Moseley permitted Hart to write for him a policy of life insurance. Hart then requested Moseley to permit him (Hart) to write a policy on the life of Moseley's father. Moseley knew that his father was not in good health, but furnished to Hart certain information relative to Moseley, Sr., such as his age, occupation, etc. Moseley then gave to Hart a check for $10, and received from Hart a receipt for the amount. This receipt was a regular printed form of the company, and stated that the $10 was received as a deposit, pending the consideration of an application for insurance "upon the life of your father." It was a refunding receipt, in so far as the printed portion thereof is concerned; the provisions being that the payment of $10 would be credited as a payment on the policy if and when an application for insurance was filled out by the insured, acceptable to both the company and the insured. The receipt was dated May 14, 1929, and the check for $10 was dated the same day.

In addition to the printed portion of the receipt, there appeared upon the face of the receipt the words "effective immediately" written with pen and ink. Moseley testified that these words were written by Hart, who also signed the receipt, although to at least one member of this court there seems to be very little similarity in the handwriting of "effective immediately" and "H. O. Hart."

John P. Moseley, the "your father" mentioned in the receipt, was then "not a well man," and died in July, 1929. A day or two after his death there was received by his widow, addressed to him, a letter inclosing an application for $2,000 of insurance. The application was dated June 21, 1929. The application had a few of the blank spaces filled out, such as the amount, the business of Moseley, and that J. P. Moseley, Jr., was the beneficiary. The letter requested Mr. Moseley to call on Dr. G. C. Bolin for the medical examination. Nothing was done as to this application; Moseley being then dead.

Shortly after the death of the elder Moseley, the younger Moseley returned to Orangeburg from New York, whence he had gone upon leaving Texas shortly after the transaction herein mentioned. He had the receipt which Hart had given him and, obtaining the unsigned application blank, he brought suit against the insurance company for the sum of $2,000 and interest, claiming to be the beneficiary under a policy which was never issued, but which was "effective immediately" on May 14, 1929.

The testimony produced the facts above stated together with the defense that no policy had ever been issued; no contract for a policy had ever been entered into between the defendant and the deceased; and that the defendant was not liable for any amount to the plaintiff. Upon the conclusion of the testimony, the defendant made a motion for a directed verdict in its favor, which was granted. The grounds upon which the motion was made were that the plaintiff had not proven a contract for life insurance upon the life of John P. Moseley; no contract ever existed, and all the plaintiff made out was the receipt providing that the defendant would consider an application for insurance. From the judgment entered upon the directed verdict, this appeal is taken. Numerous exceptions allege error on the part of the trial judge in granting the motion and in the exclusion of testimony. From the view we take of the appeal, all exceptions are disposed of in this opinion.

The trial judge assigned no reason for his ruling, merely saying, after hearing the grounds submitted: "I have made up my mind." If, however, his conclusion be correct, his reason is immaterial.

The pivotal question in this case is whether or not the plaintiff has a cause of action. If he should have, there was evidence sufficient to go to the jury, and the direction of the verdict was error. If...