Order of Railway Conductors of America v. Quigley
Decision Date | 05 January 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 2108-6964.,2108-6964. |
Parties | ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS OF AMERICA v. QUIGLEY. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Prior to May 17, 1932, C. M. Quigley had been a member of the Order of Railway Conductors of America for many years. He carried a policy of insurance provided by the Order for its members, which, prior to August 1, 1931, was carried upon the mutual assessment plan. On August 1, 1931, the Order, in compliance with statutes, changed its plan of insurance so that thereafter it should be carried on the legal reserve plan, based upon premiums payable monthly, quarterly, semiannually, or annually, as the member might elect. This change in plans resulted in the cancellation of the insurance of all members as of date August 1, 1931, but privilege of accepting insurance under the new plan was timely extended to all members, and with members such as was Quigley the privilege could be exercised at any time prior to December 31, 1931, without medical examination. Quigley had first declined to take any insurance under the new plan. However, about October 21, 1931, he wrote a letter to the general office of the Order at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, indicating his desire to take insurance in the sum of $2,000 under the new plan. In this letter he inclosed money order for $10.37 to pay the premium for August, 1931, and stated, "I will take care of September dues this month." Proof was made that the Order usually made reply to such communications promptly upon receipt of same by card addressed to the applicant reading in substance as follows: Whether in this particular instance such card was sent to Quigley is not shown. However, on November 5, 1931, the Order did send a communication to Quigley in substance as follows:
It appears to be undisputed that prior to August 1, 1931, and for several months thereafter, on account of the change in the plan of insurance, the cancellation of old policies and the issuance of new ones, and the vast amount of correspondence resulting therefrom, the office force of the Order was wholly unable to promptly transact the business of the Order. Due to this vast accumulation of work the Order employed from 20 to 30 extra helpers, and would have employed more, if competent workers could have been obtained. This condition resulted in great delay in the issuance and forwarding of new policies.
It is undisputed that after the remittance of $10.37 for the August premium Quigley never made any other remittance to the Order and never paid any sum as premiums. However, sometime in February, 1932, the Order mailed a policy to Quigley in the sum of $2,000, effective as of date August 1, 1931, showing upon its face the amount of annual, semiannual, quarterly, and monthly premiums. It is not shown when the policy was mailed to Quigley, but the receipt signed by him was received by the Order in Cedar Rapids February 15, 1932. The policy, however, must have been received by Quigley on or about February 12, 1932, for on that date Mrs. Quigley wrote the Order at Cedar Rapids as follows:
On February 17, 1932, the Order replied to this communication direct to Quigley, saying:
On February 23, 1932, Mrs. Quigley made reply to the foregoing letter. It is not necessary to set out this reply in full, but a pertinent statement therein is as follows: "When they changed the dues I paid the first due after it was changed to $10.37, then I made it known to the O. R. C. lodge at Bonham for them to please keep up Mr. Quigley due until he got well, and then he would see to them his self."
On February 25, 1932, the Order replied to this letter of Mrs. Quigley, and among other things said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rio Grande Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Faulkner, 14325
...denied, 289 U.S. 745, 53 S.Ct. 689, 77 L.Ed. 1491; Harris v. Travelers Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 80 F.2d 127; Order of Railway Conductors of America v. Quigley, 131 Tex. 4, 111 S.W.2d 698. 'The validity of an extension granted by an agent of the creditor depends on the authority vested in him; if h......