Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Reynolds

Decision Date03 December 1906
Citation98 S.W. 963,81 Ark. 202
PartiesMUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. REYNOLDS
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Marion Circuit Court; Elbridge G. Mitchell, Judge reversed.

Reynolds sued the Mutual Life Insurance Company and E. V. M. Powell alleging that he had paid $ 329.90 as the first premium on a Policy of $ 5,000 which the insurance company declined to issue, and he sought to recover the premium.

The insurance company denied that it received the sum of money set out, or that any one authorized to do so received any money on account of the proposed insurance.

Plaintiff's testimony was to the effect that he paid the first premium as alleged to Powell, who executed a binding receipt therefor countersigned by Powell as collecting agent. The application contained no receipt for the premium.

R. M Carter testified:

"My only authority is to solicit applications and send them to Remmel, and afterwards to deliver the policies to the applicants and then to collect the premium. About the 1st of September, 1904, I received by mail from Powell the plaintiff's application. Powell asked me to place it for him, as he had just tried to get a $ 10,000 policy for plaintiff in the company for which Powell was agent, and that the Security Mutual had rejected his application. Powell informed me that plaintiff would pay the premium as soon as the policy should be delivered. As a courtesy to Powell, I signed the application as agent, and forwarded it to Remmel. Seeing that the application indicated that no money had been paid by plaintiff, and having such information from Powell, I executed my personal settlement note for the premium, and sent it along with the application. I have never at any time received any money or other consideration from any source on account of said application, and I never knew that plaintiff had paid any money to Powell, or that Powell had given Reynolds a binding receipt, until some time in November 1904, when the Bank of Batesville presented to me the draft of plaintiff for that sum accompanied by the binding receipt here exhibited. I have never had possession of any binding receipts for any insurance company and never saw one until I saw this one attached to plaintiff's draft. I never, prior to the draft which plaintiff drew on Remmel, advised Remmel that the application had been sent in by Powell or that Powell had any connection with it."

H. L. Remmel testified:

"I am manager of the defendant company for Arkansas, and have exclusive authority to appoint agents to solicit applications for insurance for said company in that State on blanks furnished to me by the company and by me furnished to the agents. In September, 1904, R. M. Carter, one of my agents sent me the application of Ben Reynolds for $ 5,000 policy which application was signed by Carter as soliciting agent. It was recorded in my office and sent to the home office in New York. The application is in the form already presented. I was not informed that Powell had anything to do with it, or that Reynolds had paid the premium, or that a binding receipt had been executed. Carter sent along with the application his personal settlement note for the premium, to be paid on delivery of the policy to Reynolds, in the event it should be issued by the company. The application signed by plaintiff showed that nothing had been paid on the premium. The custom is, when the appellant pays the premium at the time of his application and receives from the agent a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Hooten v. State Use Cross County
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 21, 1915
    ...were special agents. Persons dealing with special agents must look to their authority. 17 Ark. 154; 23 Ark. 411; 74 Ark. 557; 92 Ark. 315; 81 Ark. 202; 104 Ark. 150; 105 Ark. 111; 34 246; 41 Ark. 177; 51 Ark. 483; 62 Ark. 33; 65 Ark. 144; 105 Ark. 680; 96 Ark. 105. 2. There was no ratificat......
  • Grant v. Burrows
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 19, 1919
    ... ... principal. Liddell v. Sahline, 55 Ark. 627, ... 17 S.W. 705; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v ... Reynolds, 81 Ark. 202, 98 S.W. 963; Jonesboro, ... ...
  • Slayden v. Augusta Cooperage Company
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • April 21, 1924
    ...of notice to the contrary, that he was a general agent, clothed with authority coextensive with its apparent scope. Id. 55 Ark. 627; 81 Ark. 202; 104 Ark. 2. The court's instruction to the effect that, if the jury found from a preponderance of the evidence that Thoma was a special agent, th......
  • Briggs v. Collins
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 1, 1914
    ... ... property of the insurance company. His agreement with ... appellants was purely in an individual ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT