Sealey v. Albany Ins. Co., 740
| Decision Date | 20 January 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 740,740 |
| Citation | 253 N.C. 774,117 S.E.2d 744 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Howard F. SEALEY v. ALBANY INSURANCE COMPANY; Christine Bridgman Bullock, Administratrix of the Estate of Ralph Bullock; Emma Rhodes, Administratrix of the Estate of Guthrie Johnson Rhodes; Hubert Page; Elbert Hayes. |
Sanford, Phillips, McCoy & Weaver, Fayetteville, for defendant Albany Insurance Co., appellant.
Hackett & Weinstein, Lumberton, for plaintiff, appellee.
Britt, Campbell & Britt, Lumberton, for defendant Christine Bridgman Bullock, Adm'x, appellee.
L. J. Britt & Son, Lumberton for defendant Emma Rhodes, Adm'x, appellee.
McLean & Stacy, Lumberton, for defendants Hubert Page and Elbert Hayes, appellees.
The plaintiff introduced the insurance policy which he alleged was issued and delivered to him for the appellant by 'its authorized representative, C. G. Mauney. ' The policy provided for cancellation. Mr. Mauney offered to testify that no premium was ever paid and that for that reason he had authority to and did cancel the policy in the manner provided. When the court refused to admit the testimony, Mauney identified his contract with the appellant and offered to testify that he had been acting under it for three years; that he knew the signature of the officer who signed it. The court still refused to admit the contract which showed Mauney's authority to cancel. The evidence was sufficient to identify and authenticate the contract. It should have been admitted in evidence. If the court excluded the agent's oral testimony on the ground his authority was in writing, then the exclusion of the writing was certainly prejudicial.
We apprehend that in this instance counsel and the court gave undue heed to the well-recognized principle of law that agency and its extent may not be proved by the declarations and statements of the agent. The proposition is correct in a proper case. This is not such a case. ' New Home Sewing Machine Co. v. Seago, 128 N.C. 158, 38 S.E. 805, 807. 'This is not a case of proving an agency by the declaration of the alleged agent, but by the testimony of an agent under oath. ' Hill v. Bean, 150 N.C. 436, 64 S.E. 212, 213. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Branch v. Dempsey, 194
...agent, as distinguished from testimony by him, are not admissible against the alleged principal to prove agency. Sealey v. Albany Insurance Co., 253 N.C. 774, 117 S.E.2d 744; Commercial Solvents, Inc. v. Johnson, 235 N.C. 237, 69 S.E.2d However, the plaintiff also introduced in evidence Sim......
-
Wiles v. Mullinax, 36
...bind either or both of the two insurance companies was, of course, competent upon that question though not conclusive. Sealy v. Insurance Co., 253 N.C. 774, 117 S.E.2d 744. Plaintiff's Exhibit 13 was also competent upon that question with reference to Dixie Fire and Casualty Company. This i......
-
Yaggy v. B. V. D. Co.
...offer. Such direct testimony by the agent is competent to prove agency, as well as to prove its nature and extent. Sealy v. Albany Insurance Co., 253 N.C. 774, 117 S.E.2d 744. We do not consider the contract for sale invalid because not approved by B.V.D.'s Board of Directors. There was amp......
-
Northwestern Bank v. NCF Financial Corp., 8723SC576
...testimony is competent to show both the proof of agency and the nature and extent of the relationship. Sealey v. Albany Ins. Co., 253 N.C. 774, 777, 117 S.E.2d 744, 746-47 (1961). No evidence was introduced contradicting this testimony. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to show that Pa......