Pan American Life Ins. Co. v. Carter
Decision Date | 21 November 1918 |
Docket Number | 2 Div. 665 |
Citation | 80 So. 75,202 Ala. 237 |
Parties | PAN AMERICAN LIFE INS. CO. v. CARTER. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marengo County; R.I. Jones, Judge.
Action by Ellis S. Carter against the Pan American Life Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Tillman Bradley & Morrow and Jno. S. Stone, all of Birmingham, for appellant.
William Cunningham, of Linden, for appellee.
The judgment in this case purports to have been entered on October 4, 1917. From the indorsement of the trial judge thereon, it appears that the bill of exceptions was presented on December 17, 1917. Appellee's brief in support of the motion to strike the bill of exceptions contains a statement to the effect that the bill was signed by the presiding judge on the day of its presentation, and that afterwards, on February 9, 1918, corrections were made by the judge. The original bill of exceptions, which has been certified up and submitted in evidence upon this motion, does not bear out the statement of the brief. It shows presentation on December 17th as stated above, and that the presiding judge did on February 9, 1918, after making corrections on that day approve and sign the bill. While the bill was corrected in some particulars, no new ground of alleged error, no new exception, was incorporated therein, so that the motion to strike falls squarely within the rule laid down in Tapia v. Williams, 172 Ala. 18, 54 So. 613. The motion must be overruled.
The bill of exceptions purports to contain all the evidence offered or heard upon the trial of the cause. This report of the evidence shows that defendant's pleas and rejoinder upon which the case went to the jury, were proved without conflict. In this state of the case, defendant was entitled to the general affirmative charge which was duly requested. This charge appears in the bill of exceptions only, but it must be considered nevertheless. Mobile Light & Railroad Co. v. Thomas, 78 So. 399.
Numerous assignments of error, based upon rulings on the pleadings are argued in the briefs. There is no necessity for a review of each ruling. It will suffice to state our opinion on the question, which, on the present record, must control the result of the case.
The suit is upon a policy of life insurance. The policy, dated July 8, 1915, contains the following stipulation:
The premium due July 8, 1916, was not paid; but on August 4th, next thereafter, insured executed his promissory note for the amount of it, due and payable October 10, 1916, with interest at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum. This note was not paid at maturity, and upon October 11, 1916, insured died. Defendant's receipt, under a heading which showed that it was the premium due July 8, 1916, on the policy held by insured, was expressed as follows:
"Received as stated under the 'Detail of Settlement' on this receipt, the premium above described, subject to the terms, conditions and provisions of the policy named and the conditions printed on the back of this receipt."
On the back of said receipt the following:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Clinchfield Coal Corp.
...Life Ins. Co., 301 Ill. 198, 133 N. E. 726; Robnett v. Cotton States Life Ins. Co., 148 Ark. 199, 230 S. W. 257; Pan-American Life Ins. Co. v. Carter, 202 Ala. 237, 80 So. 75; Home Life & Accident Co. v. Haskins, 156 Ark. 77, 245 S. W. 181; Fidelity Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Bussell, 74 Ark. ......
-
Ex parte Hines
... ... State, 201 Ala. 572, 78 South 916, 918; Pan-Amer ... Life Ins. Co. v. Carter, 202 Ala. 237, 80 So. 75; ... Sloss-Sheff. S. & I. Co ... ...
-
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Posey
... ... incorporation of other exceptions." ... In ... Pan American Life Ins. Co. v. Carter, 202 Ala. 237, ... 80 So. 75, this court wrote: ... ...
-
Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Yancey
... ... this suit should only be for life, and that at her death the ... land involved in this suit should go to ... & Ry ... Co. v. Thomas, 78 So. 399; Pan Amer. Life Ins. Co ... v. Carter, 80 So. 75). We are of opinion that charge A, ... ...