Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Boggs, 4-3290.
Decision Date | 15 January 1934 |
Docket Number | No. 4-3290.,4-3290. |
Citation | 66 S.W.2d 1077 |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Parties | UNION CENT. LIFE INS. CO. v. BOGGS. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cleveland County; Patrick Henry, Judge.
Action by Elizabeth McMurtrey Boggs, guardian of Victor James Boggs, against the Union Central Life Insurance Company, of Cincinnati, Ohio. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Buzbee, Harrison, Buzbee & Wright, of Little Rock, for appellant.
Woodson Mosley, of Rison, and R. W. Wilson, of Pine Bluff, for appellee.
The appellee, a guardian of an insane person, brought suit against the appellant insurance company to recover disability benefits under a clause in the contract of insurance issued by said company to the ward of the appellee. An answer was filed to the complaint and various motions made and proceedings taken, when finally the appellee, by amendment to the complaint, alleged that she and the appellant, pending the litigation, had agreed upon a settlement of the controversy by which she was to be paid by the appellant a stipulated sum in full settlement of all demands which then existed, or might thereafter arise under the policy, upon her execution and delivery to the appellant of a "valid, binding and unimpeachable release," and the delivery to the insurer of the policy for cancellation; that she had complied with the terms of the agreement, but that the appellant had failed to settle according to the agreement. She prayed for judgment.
To the complaint, as amended, the appellant tendered its answer admitting the agreement, but alleging that the appellant was without authority to execute and deliver a release of the nature and effect agreed upon. Appellant denied that appellee had executed and tendered any such release and admitted its willingness to carry into effect the agreement upon the performance by the appellee of her part of the agreement, namely, that she would execute and deliver a valid, binding, and unimpeachable release.
On the issues thus joined on the complaint as finally amended and the amended answer thereto, the cause came on to be heard and by express agreement of the parties a jury was waived and the cause submitted to the court sitting as a jury. The court, after having heard the evidence, refused the findings of fact and declarations of law requested by the appellant and rendered judgment in favor of the appellee, basing the same on the findings of fact and declarations of law requested by appellee, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial