Smith v. Farmers' Mut. Ins. Ass'n of Georgia
| Decision Date | 08 August 1900 |
| Parties | SMITH v. FARMERS' MUT. INS. ASS'N OF GEORGIA. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
It is not essential to the validity of a policy of insurance, which was actually signed by the president and secretary of the company by which it purported to have been issued, that the person who, in behalf of the company, after the policy had been so signed and placed in his hands, filled blanks therein so as to make it a complete contract, and who then delivered the same to the insured, should have been clothed with written authority either to fill such blanks or make the delivery.
Error from superior court, Elbert county; S. Reese, Judge.
Action by W. H. Smith against the Farmers' Mutual Insurance Association of Georgia. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
John P Shannon and Asbury G. McCurry, for plaintiff in error.
W. D Tutt, for defendant in error.
Smith sued the Farmers' Mutual Insurance Association of Georgia upon a policy of fire insurance in the city court of Elbert county. At the trial, in addition to evidence of the value of the property claimed to have been insured, its total destruction by fire, and notice of loss to the company followed by a refusal on its part to pay, there was evidence that the plaintiff received from one Brown the paper sued on, signed by the president and secretary of the association. Brown testified that he was the agent of the association, and as such filled up the blanks in the policy which had been delivered to him by one Manglebury, and after the property had been valued by Thomas, who was a director of the association, delivered the policy to the plaintiff, who signed the same as required by the rules of the association. It appeared from the minutes of the association that one Fickett was elected local agent for the county in which the plaintiff's property was located, and that Manglebury was appointed to assist him. The by-laws of the association, which were in evidence, clearly authorized the local agent to appoint assistants; one of such by-laws imposing upon the "agent, or any one appointed by him," certain penalties for insuring buildings of a certain character, and another by-laws providing that, should the agent "appoint assistants, such assistants shall be responsible for everything done in his name." At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence a motion was made to rule out the evidence as to what had been done by Brown, upon the ground that it appeared therefrom that his authority to fill the blanks in the policy and deliver the same was not in writing. The court sustained this motion, and then, upon motion of the defendant, granted a nonsuit. The rulings just referred to were assigned as error in a petition for certiorari which was filed by the plaintiff; and the case is here upon a bill of exceptions, in which a judgment overruling the certiorari is assigned as error.
As the effect of the ruling upon the testimony of Brown was to leave the plaintiff's case in a condition where, although the policy of insurance was in evidence, it did not constitute a binding contract with the association, we will deal only with the assignment of error on that ruling, for the reason that if Brown had authority to fill the blanks in the policy and deliver the same, the evidence in behalf of the plaintiff was sufficient to carry the case to the jury. The local agent of the association was undoubtedly authorized to fill blanks in policies, and also to deliver them. There is no controversy as to this. It is said, however, that Manglebury is not a local agent. The minutes of the association show that he was appointed to assist the local...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boswell v. State
... ... Carter, 101 Ga. 209, 28 S.E. 869; Smith v ... Association, 111 Ga. 737, 740, 36 S.E ... ...
- Boswell v. State
-
Miller v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...Amer. Freehold &c. Co., 90 Ga. 113(3), 15 S.E. 687 (1892). See also Brown v. Colquitt, 73 Ga. 59(2) (1884); Smith v. Farmers' Mut. Ins. Assn. of Ga., 111 Ga. 737, 36 S.E. 957 (1900); Brandon v. Pritchett, 126 Ga. 286(1), 55 S.E. 241 (1906). Cf. Hartford Ins. Group v. Voyles, 149 Ga.App. 517......
- Bowen v. Gaskins