Sneed v. British America Assur. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 October 1894 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | A. J. SNEED, JR., v. BRITISH AMERICA ASSURANCE CO |
FROM the circuit court of Madison county, HON. J. B. CHRISMAN Judge.
To an action by appellant against appellee on a policy of insurance covering a store, the defendant pleaded that, at the time of the loss, the privilege tax paid by plaintiff on his store was insufficient, and, therefore, that the contract of insurance was with reference to a business carried on in disregard of § 3390, code 1892, imposing a graduated privilege tax on stores, and was void under the provisions of § 3401. Plaintiff demurred to this plea, because it did not allege that his privilege tax was insufficient at the time the policy was written. The demurrer was overruled, and plaintiff having declined to amend or plead further, judgment was entered for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
F. B Pratt and Downs & Ward, for appellant.
The validity of the policy must be determined with reference to the quantity of goods on hand when it was issued. It would be an absurd construction, and one leading to unjust results, to hold that a contract, valid when made, would become void because, before it matures, the party making it has failed to pay a sufficient privilege tax. In all the cases in this court where contracts have been held void under this law, the party had no license, or an insufficient one, when the contract was made. See Anding v. Levy, 57 Miss. 51; Decell v. Lewinthal, 57 Ib., 331.
W. H Powell, for appellee.
It is the duty of a merchant to watch the fluctuations in the amount of stock carried, and, if it exceeds what he has paid taxes on, he should increase his privilege. The language of the statute is: "All contracts made with any person who shall violate the provisions of this chapter," etc., shall be null and void. Pollard v. Insurance Co., 63 Miss. 244, is decisive of this case.
The policy was payable upon condition of loss, and at the time of loss Sneed was violating the statute. The law does not render the contract void, but simply denies plaintiff the right to sue thereon. It denies to one in default the machinery of the courts to enforce a claim based upon the illegal business.
Argued orally by F. B. Pratt, for appellant.
On the facts stated, it does not appear that the contract of insurance was made by the plaintiff "in a business carried on in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sun Mut. Ins. Co. v. Searles
...for the defendant." These instructions, which correctly announce the law, show that the learned judge below very accurately understood the Sneed There are only two views, then, in which the fourth instruction for the plaintiff could have been regarded as proper by the court below. The first......
-
American Fire Ins. Co. v. First Nat. Bank
... ... Phoenix Ins. Co., 63 Miss. 244. The case of Sneed v ... Assurance Co., 72 Miss. 51, has no application to the ... present ... ...
-
Bohn v. Lowery
... ... Merrill v. Melchior, 30 Miss. 516; Sneed v. The ... Assurance Co., 72 Miss. 51; Harris v. Runnels, ... 12 How ... ...
- Greenwood Ice & Coal Co. v. Georgia Home Ins. Co.