Sunbury Fire Ins. Co. v. Humble

• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Paxson
• Citation: Sunbury Fire Ins. Co. v. Humble, 100 Pa. 495 (Pa. 1882)
• Decision Date: 05 October 1882
• Parties: Sunbury Fire Insurance Company <I>versus</I> Humble.

100 Pa. 495

Sunbury Fire Insurance Company versus Humble.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 5, 1882.

October 5, 1882.

May 5th 1882.

Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT and GREEN, JJ.

ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill county: Of January Term 1882, No. 292.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

James Ryon (with whom was William A. Marr), for plaintiff in error.—A false representation, in order to have the effect of a fraud, must relate to a substantial matter of fact, coupled with an intent to deceive on a material point, and be the means which produced the contract. If the defendant acted on the opinion of the agent, no matter for what reason, then he was not induced to enter into the contract by the alleged misrepresentation of fact: 2 Pars. Cont. 275; Sandford v. Handy, 23 Wend. 260; Phipps v. Buckman, 6 Casey 401; Huber v. Wilson, 11 Harris 178.

G. R. Kaercher (with whom were M. M. L'Velle and John W. Ryon), for defendant in error.—The rulings of the court upon the effect which should be given to the false representations made by Price, in regard to the condition of the company, submitted the question properly and fairly to the jury, who practically found that the false statements were made to Garner, and by him communicated to Humble, who was thereby induced to accept a policy in the company. A mutual insurance company cannot cause false and fraudulent representations to be made by its agents, and enforce the contract thereby obtained against the party who rescinds it upon the discovery of the fraud: Lycoming Insurance Company v. Woodworth, 2 Norris 223.

Mr. Justice PAXSON delivered the opinion of the court October 5th 1882.

The evidence referred to in the first assignment of error was offered for the purpose of showing that the representations made by Mr. Price in the preceding January were made by and with the authority of the plaintiff company, and assented to by it as correct. We think the learned judge was right in admitting it. There was abundant evidence to show that the company was a fraud from its inception, and there was ample evidence to submit to the jury that it deceived its agents as to its financial condition, in order that they in turn might deceive innocent parties who desired to insure their property. In this connection it is proper to say that it matters little what were the powers of the agent who made the fraudulent representations by means of which the defendant was induced to take...