Truly v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York
Decision Date | 26 October 1914 |
Docket Number | 16432 |
Citation | 66 So. 970,108 Miss. 453 |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Parties | TRULY v. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK |
APPEAL from the chancery court of Jefferson county. HON. J. S HICKS, Chancellor.
Bill by Jeff Truly, against the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York. From a decree, complainant appeals and the defendant cross-appeals.
Appellant filed his bill in the court below praying that appellee be decreed to issue a paid-up policy on his life payable to his wife, Mrs. Mattie Truly, and, from a decree which seems to have been intended to sustain in part and overrule in part a demurrer interposed thereto, both an appeal and cross-appeal have been prosecuted to this court.
The bill alleges, in substance, that in 1891 appellant was solicited by one Hubert Hunoldstein, an agent of appellee, to make application for a policy of insurance in appellee company; that, during the progress of negotiations between appellant and Hunoldstein, Hunoldstein wrote appellant that among the options which would be available to him under the policy contemplated, was that at the expiration of twenty years, he could "take a paid-up policy for five thousand four hundred and ninety dollars;" that appellant, upon receiving and examining the policy, "ascertained that it contained no statement with reference to the option for its surrender for paid-up insurance at the expiration of the twenty-year distribution period, being, as before stated, the option which complainant desired to avail himself of and which had been stated to him by the soliciting agent as being available under the policy applied for." He thereupon wrote to T. H. Bowles at New Orleans, Louisiana, who is alleged to have been appellee's general agent "setting forth the facts above detailed as to said option and requested of him a statement as to the options which would be available at the end of the twenty-year distribution period should he decide to accept the policy applied for." To this letter Bowles replied as follows:
The statement referred to in this letter, omitting therefrom the portions having no bearing on this controversy, was as follows:
second year amount payable $ 5,000.
third year amount payable $ 5,000.
fourth year amount payable $ 5,000.
fifth year amount payable $ 5,000.
sixth year amount payable $ 5,000."
--and continuing in like manner through the twentieth year.
Upon receipt of this letter and statement appellant, in the language of the bill, "acting upon the assurance of said general agent explaining the terms of said policy that said options were available under the said policy, although the same were not set out in the face thereof, complainant accepted said policy" and has paid twenty annual premiums thereon.
The bill further alleges that prior to the expiration of the twenty years appellant notified appellee that he desired to surrender the policy and accept a paid-up policy for the amount to which under the contract he was entitled; that appellee admitted his right so to do, but declined to issue him a paid-up policy for five thousand four hundred and ninety dollars, and offered him, instead, a paid-up policy for three thousand eight hundred and fifteen dollars, which he declined to accept. There was no allegation in the bill setting forth how this amount of three thousand eight hundred and fifteen dollars was arrived at, and the only clause in the policy dealing with the question of a paid-up policy is as follows:
"Paid-up Policy,--After three full annual premiums have been paid upon this policy, the company will, upon the legal surrender thereof before default in payment of any premium, or within six months thereafter, issue a nonparticipating policy for paid-up insurance, payable as herein provided, for the amount required by the provisions of the act of May 21, 1879, chapter 347, Laws of the state of New York."
The statute of the state of New York referred to provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
American Bankers' Ins. Co. v. Lee
... ... v. Morrison ... Co., 51 So. 1, 96 Miss. 835; Truly v. Mutual Life ... Ins. Co. of New York, 108 Miss. 453, 66 So. 970; ... ...
-
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Clark
... ... Bouldin ... case, 100 Miss. 677; New York Life Insurance Co. v ... O'Dom, 56 So. 379; Insurance Co. v ... v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 142 Miss. 382; Truly v ... Insurance Co., 108 Miss. 453; The Merchants Union Fire ... F ... Moss, of Lucedale, for appellees ... Mutual ... mistakes of the parties in any sort of contract may be ... ...
-
Home Ins. Co. of New York v. Thornhill
... ... Continental ... Casualty Company v. Hall, 118. Miss. 871; Truly ... v. Mutual Life, 108 Miss. 453; Jacobs v. New York ... Life, 71 Miss. 658; Newark Fire v ... ...
-
Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Shoemake
...limitations of agents' powers contained in the contract are binding on the applicant. Truly v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 66 So. 970; s. c. 108 Miss. 453; Insurance Co. v. O'Don, 100 Miss. 219; v. New York Ins. Co., 155 N.Y. 255; National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. School Dist., 182 S.W. 547; Porter......