Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Jones

• Decision Date: 28 March 1903
• Citation: 73 S.W. 978
• Parties: TRAVELERS' INS. CO. v. JONES.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

73 S.W. 978

TRAVELERS' INS. CO. v. JONES.^*

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

March 28, 1903.

Appeal from District Court, Hunt County; H. C. Connor, Judge.

Action by Minnie Jones against the Travelers' Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Bomar & Bomar, for appellant. Bennett & Jones and Maurice E. Locke, for appellee.

BOOKHOUT, J.

This suit was filed in the district court of Hunt county on the 25th day of July, 1902, by appellee, to recover against the Travelers' Insurance Company the sum of $2,000, the amount of an accident insurance policy issued by said insurance company to W. W. Jones, the husband of plaintiff. A trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and the defendant company appealed.

Conclusions of Fact.

On July 29, 1901, W. W. Jones, who was in the employ of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas as car repairer, executed and delivered to the Travelers' Insurance Company, through its special agent, J. J. Farley, a written and printed application for an accident insurance policy in the amount of $2,000 in case of accidental death. The application was accepted by said special agent, and on July 30, 1901, said company, through said agent, in consideration of a premium of $25, executed and delivered to said W. W. Jones its policy of insurance in accordance with said application. By the terms of the policy, the premium was to be paid in separate consecutive periods of two, two, three, and five months, in the sum of $6.25 for each payment, each to only apply to its corresponding insurance period, and, further, said Jones was to leave in the hands of the paymaster of the said railway company sufficient funds earned in the preceding month to pay said installments of premium; and it was provided that, in case the assured should fall to leave in the hands of the paymaster any of the premium as it should fall due, the policy should be void in the case of the premium for the first period and in case of the premium for any later period the policy should terminate with the period for which the next preceding premium should have been paid. After receiving the policy on July 30, 1901, Jones wrote a letter, and sent same, with the policy inclosed, by mail, to John L. Way, defendant's state agent for Texas, at St. Louis, Mo., in which letter he stated that it would be impossible for him to pay the premium stipulated in the policy, and for this reason he returned the policy, and requested said agent to cancel the application therefor. On the same day he wrote and mailed a letter to the defendant company, at its home office, in Hartford, Conn., stating that a policy had been written, but that he found it would be impossible to pay the assessment, and asking the company to cancel the application for insurance. On August 9, 1901, defendant's state agent, John L. Way, wrote to W. W. Jones a letter, which was duly received by Jones, in substance as follows: "Replying to your letter of the 30th ulto., would say that the enclosed Accident Policy #1148085 was written for you on July 30th, and was placed in full force and effect on that date. It is therefore too late for me to interfere in the arrangement made at that time, and I trust that you will be able to meet the payments of the premium as they become due. The insurance was issued in the best of faith and the company expects to do its part in every particular. The contract is a most liberal one, and you are permitted to pay for the protection which it affords in installments, thereby making it most convenient for you. The contract is identical with that carried by a great number of men engaged in the same occupation that you are, and I have heard no complaints from any source." In this letter he returned the policy to Jones. On August 12, 1901, Jones replied: "Mr. Jno. L. Way, St. Louis, Mo. Sir: Yours of the 9th to hand and will state that if your terms are as your agent stated, I am willing to keep up the policy #1148085. He told me that it would cost me $6.25 per quarter, that is, $6.25 for Aug. Sept. and Oct. Now if this statement be correct, I am willing to comply with my part of the contract. But after he had left one of the men informed me that it was $6.25 per month. Now if this be the case I positively will not pay it at all. As I have talked to some of the best attorneys in this place and find out from them that I am only bound to the contract as I understood it, and I have witnesses to prove that quarterly was the space of time mentioned all the way through, but I find now after you have returned the policy, Sept. 20, $6.25; Oct. 20, $6.25; Nov. 20, $6.25, Dec. 20, $6.25 written on the sealing part of the envelope. Now Mr. Way, I propose to be a gentleman in every respect and pay all honest debts but positively refuse to pay $6.25 per month for the money I am laboring for now is really not mine as I owed it long before I heard of your robbing business and expect for my money to go for honest debts. I wrote the Ins. Co. at Hartford the same time I wrote you. I will return the policy again and if you make your agents word good I will make mine good...