Paisley v. Lucas

• Decision Date: 18 September 1940
• Docket Number: 36592
• Citation: 143 S.W.2d 262,346 Mo. 827
• Parties: George F. Paisley, Appellant, v. Ray B. Lucas, as Superintendent of the Insurance Department of the State
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

143 S.W.2d 262

346 Mo. 827

George F. Paisley, Appellant, v. Ray B. Lucas, as Superintendent of the Insurance Department of the State

No. 36592

Supreme Court of Missouri

September 18, 1940

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. Frank B Coleman, Judge. Opinion filed at May Term, 1940, August 5, 1940; motion for rehearing filed; motion overruled at September Term, 1940, September 18, 1940.

Affirmed.

Cullen Storckman & Coil for appellant.

(1) Plaintiff's contract, including the supplements thereto properly construed, entitles plaintiff to commissions and bonuses on insurance written in territory designated in plaintiff's contract as open territory by agents not appointed by plaintiff. White v. Murphy, 236 S.W. 675; Counts v. Medley, 163 Mo.App. 555; Zinc & Lead Co. v. Ins. Co., 152 Mo.App. 342; Burman v. Bezeau, 85 S.W.2d 220; Donovan v. Boeck, 217 Mo. 87, 116 S.W. 547; Thompson v. Lindsay, 242 Mo. 72; Home Trust Co. v. Shapiro, 64 S.W.2d 727; 12 Am. Jur., sec. 288, pp. 749, 750, 751; McFarland v. Gillioz, 372 Mo. 698; Miller v. Mut. Benefit & Acc. Assn., 80 S.W.2d 204; Ransford v. Natl. Protective Ins. Assn., 16 S.W.2d 664. (a) The agreed facts included in stipulation 2 entitled plaintiff to recover commissions and bonuses on insurance written in territory not named in plaintiff's contract by agents not appointed by plaintiff in the instances mentioned in said stipulation 2. 1 Mechem on Agency (2 Ed.), sec. 500, p. 364; Nesbit v. Hessler, 49 Mo. 383; Gellett v. Reed, 117 Mo. 553; Beegles v. Robertson, 135 Mo.App. 306; Carrie v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 130 S.E. 582. (2) Plaintiff's contract was specifically assumed by the Missouri State Life Insurance Company by virtue of the terms and provisions of the contract of assumption between the Missouri State Life Insurance Company and the receivers of the International Life Insurance Company. (a) Plaintiff's contract is a contract for a definite period of time and not terminable at the will of either party thereto. Harrington v. K. C. Cable Ry. Co., 60 Mo.App. 227; Robson v. Mississippi River Logging Co., 43 F. 370; 2 C. J. S., p. 1149, sec. 68; 2 Amer. Juris., sec. 50, pp. 45, 46; Nelson v. Massmann Const. Co., 91 S.W.2d 626; Greenwald v. Gotham Silk Hosiery Co., 212 N.Y.S. 615; Davis v. Ins. Co., 181 Mo.App. 353; City of Superior v. Douglas County Tel. Co., 122 N.W. 1027; American Steam Laundry Co. v. Riverside Ptg. Co., 177 N.W. 853; Printing Co. v. Graphite Compendius Co., 150 Mo.App. 392. (b) Even though plaintiff's contract be construed as one for an indefinite period of time, it is not terminable except for cause for the reason that a consideration, in addition to the agreement of plaintiff to render services, passed from the plaintiff to the International Life Insurance Company at the time of the execution of the contract. Harrington v. K. C. Cable Ry. Co., 60 Mo.App. 227; Fullington v. Ozark Poultry Supply Co., 39 S.W.2d 783; Minter v. Druggist Co., 187 Mo.App. 26. (c) Plaintiff's contract is not cancellable by its terms. State ex rel. Mackey v. Hyde, 315 Mo. 691; Sec. 6095, R. S. 1919; Sec. 5684, R. S. 1929; State ex rel. Anderson v. Becker, 326 Mo. 1193; State ex rel. Prewitt v. Thompson, 334 Mo. 144, 66 S.W.2d 109. (d) There was no withdrawal by the International Life Insurance Company from the territory mentioned in plaintiff's contract within the meaning of the terms of plaintiff's contract. Lewis v. Atlas Mut. Life Ins. Co., 61 Mo. 534. (3) Plaintiff's contract was wrongfully breached by reason of the receivership of the International Life Insurance Company. Lewis v. Atlas Mut. Life Ins. Co., 61 Mo. 534; Central Trust Co. v. Chicago Auditorium, 240 U.S. 581; 1 Clark on Receivership, chap. 15, sec. 423, p. 576; Filene v. Weed, 245 U.S. 597; McLean Sons Co. v. Butler & Co., 227 F. 325; Operators Oil Co. v. Barber, 65 F.2d 861. (4) Damages accruing to plaintiff on account of loss of future earnings are not speculative, but are recoverable herein. City of Kennett v. Construction Co., 273 Mo. 292; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Nexson, 84 Ind. 347, 43 Am. Rep. 91; Wells v. Natl. Life Assn., 99 F. 222; Michigan Mut. Life v. Coleman, 100 S.W. 122; Ganz v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 220 S.W. 490; U. S. F. & G. Co. v. Ridge, 197 S.W. 795; Oklahoma Fire Ins. Co. v. Loss, 170 S.W. 1062; Merchants Life Ins. Co. v. Griswold, 212 S.W. 807; Stowell v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 46 N.Y.S. 802; Mortimer v. Bristol, 180 N.Y.S. 55; Richey v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co., 122 N.W. 1030; Wells v. Natl. Life Assn. of Hartford, 99 F. 222. (5) The Missouri State Life Insurance Company was liable for the payment of plaintiff's claim herein on the ground of fraud and on the ground of continuation and merger. Ingram v. Prairie Block Coal Co., 319 Mo. 653; Colonial Ice Cream Co. v. Southland, 53 F.2d 934; Okmulgee Window Glass Co. v. Funk, 260 F. 159; Quinn v. Assurance Co., 183 Mo.App. 27; 8 Thompson on Corporations (3 Ed.), sec. 653, p. 125; Peters v. American Ry. Express, 256 S.W. 100; Hozier v. Menzies Shoe Co. of Detroit, 173 P. 376; Consella v. Marquette Eastern Finance Corp., 28 S.W.2d 427; Evans v. Unity Inv. Co., 196 S.W. 49; Ledbetter v. Sunflower State Coal Co., 152 P. 663; Coal Co. v. Nicholson, 145 P. 571.

Williams, Nelson & English and Allen May for respondent.

(1) The referee and the court below correctly construed plaintiff's contract with International Life Insurance Company to mean that plaintiff was not entitled to commissions or bonuses on insurance in territory designated in plaintiff's contract as "open territory" unless written by agents appointed by plaintiff because: (a) The intention of the contracting parties must not be gathered from a single provision, but from a consideration of all provisions. County of Johnson v. Wood, 84 Mo. 489; Meyer v. Christopher, 176 Mo. 580; Webb v. Mo State Life Ins. Co., 134 Mo.App. 576; La Crosse Lbr. Co. v. Schwartz, 163 Mo.App. 659; Wittmeyer v. Storms, 203 S.W. 237; Phillips v. Amer. Natl. Assur. Co., 58 S.W.2d 814; Du Pont de Nemours v. Claiborne, 64 F.2d 224. (b) Where a written instrument, after giving due effect to all its language, is found to be ambiguous on its face, the court in reaching a construction of the instrument will give it such meaning as is reasonable and fair under all the facts and circumstances. McCartney v. Guardian Trust Co., 274 Mo. 238; White v. Murphy, 236 S.W. 674; Miller v. Bowen Coal Mining Co., 40 S.W.2d 485. (c) The plaintiff acquiesced in the construction given by attorneys for International Life. (d) The agreed facts included in stipulation 2, paragraph 46, show that plaintiff was not entitled to recover commissions or bonuses on insurance written in territory not named in plaintiff's contract by agents not appointed by plaintiff, because the contract is plain and unambiguous as to such contracts. St. Louis v. St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co., 228 Mo. 712. (2) The referee and the court below correctly ruled that plaintiff's contract as to future new business was not assumed by defendant Missouri State Life Insurance Co. (future renewals on policies written before the International Life Ins. Co. was reinsured are not involved because of stipulation 1, par. 1, because: (a) Plaintiff's hiring was for an indefinite period and therefore terminable at will, and he could have been discharged at any time by International Life Insurance Company without rendering that company liable for breach of his contract. Boogher v. Maryland Life Ins. Co., 8 Mo.App. 533; Maccalum Ptg. Co. v. Graphite Compendius Co., 150 Mo.App. 383, 130 S.W. 836; Staroske v. Pulitzer Publ. Co., 235 Mo. 67, 138 S.W. 36; Meyer v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 156 Mo.App. 170, 136 S.W. 5; Burke v. Priest & Burke, 50 Mo.App. 310; Coffin v. Landis, 46 Pa. 426; Stier v. Imperial Life Ins. Co., 58 F. 843; Pellet v. Mfgrs. & Merchants Ins. Co., 104 F. 502; Davis v. Fidelity Fire Ins. Co., 70 N.E. 359; So. States Life Ins. Co. v. Hodges, 110 S.E. 406; Moore v. Security Trust & Life Ins. Co., 168 F. 496; Davis v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 12 F. 281; Wilcox & Gibbs Sewing Machine Co. v. Ewing, 141 U.S. 627, 35 L.Ed. 882; Wheeler v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 227 F. 369; Wilkinson v. Inter-Southern Life Ins. Co., 147 Ga. 283, 93 S.E. 406; Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Carey, 128 A. 537, 282 Pa. 598; Stone v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 231 Ky. 264, 21 S.W.2d 281; Combs v. Standard Oil Co. of La., 59 S.W.2d 525; Joliet Bottling Co. v. Joliet Citizens Brewing Co., 254 Ill. 215, 98 N.E. 263; Martin v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 42 N.E. 416, 148 N.Y. 117; Fass v. Atlantic Life Ins. Co., 105 S.C. 107, 89 S.E. 558. (3) The referee and the court below correctly ruled that the receivership of International Life Insurance Company did not in and of itself constitute a breach of plaintiff's contract for which defendant Missouri State Life Insurance Company could be held liable, because: 2 Tardy's Smith Receivers 1482; Wade, Ins. Commr., v. Mutual Bldg. & Loan Assn., 145 S.E. 18; People v. Globe Mut. Life Ins. Co., 91 N.Y. 174; Commonwealth v. Eagle Fire Ins. Co., 14 Allen, 344; Williamson County Banking & Trust Co. v. Roberts-Byford Dry Goods Co., 118 Tenn. 340, 101 S.W. 421; Malcomson v. Wappoo Mills, 88 F. 680; Lenoir v. Linville Imp. Co., 126 N.C. 922; Law v. Waldron, 230 Pa. 458, 79 A. 647; Burton v. Bay States Gas Co., 188 F. 161; Du Pont v. Standard Arms Co., 81 A. 1089, 9 Del. Ch. 315; English v. Scottish Marine Ins. Co., 5 Ch. App. 737; Rosenbaum v. Credit System Co., 61 N. J. Law 543; Layton v. Ill. Life Ins. Co., 81 F.2d 600, certiorari denied, Bachman v. Davis, 298 U.S. 681. (4) Judgment was properly rendered on defendant's counterclaim, because: (a) Plaintiff on the accounting pursuant to stipulations of fact had been overpaid renewal commissions on policies not written by him or his subagents on...