Walker v. State Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 09 May 1891 |
| Citation | 46 Kan. 312,26 P. 718 |
| Parties | WALKER v. STATE INS. CO. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Where an application for insurance has been reduced to writing, and the applicant has had an opportunity to read the same, but signs it without reading it, and there is no fraud practiced and the applicant afterwards receives the policy of insurance based upon such application, and retains it for several months without objection, he cannot, in an action brought upon a note given for the premium on such policy, vary or contradict the statements in the written application by parol evidence.
Commissioners’ decision. Error from district court, Elk county; M. G. TROUP. Judge.
A. M Jackson, for plaintiff in error.
Glasscock & Car and Thos. H. Bain, for defendant in error.
This was an action on a promissory note executed on the 9th day of April, 1886, by Phillip Walker to the State Insurance Company, of Des Moines, Iowa, for $51.50, and due April 1, 1887, given in payment of the premium on an insurance policy. The case came on appeal to the district court of Elk county, where it was tried, and judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant in error. The defense sought to be made by the maker of the note was that there was a failure of consideration, and fraud and deceit practiced in the procurement of the note; that the insurance policy was to cover some stock which the defendant below had, but was not in fact included in the application for the policy; that the agents of the company had him sign the application which they had filled out, without reading it; that the policy did not insure the property which he requested the agents to have insured.
It is claimed that the court erred in not permitting the defendant below to introduce evidence tending to contradict the application which he had signed. There is no question raised but what the policy was in accordance with the application. The defendant stated upon the trial that he took the application in his hands to read, but he was ashamed to say that he signed it without reading it, and his only excuse was that he did not have a desirable opportunity to read it. There is no pretense but what the defendant could have read the application before he attached his signature to it, if he had desired to do so. The application itself cautioned him to read it before signing it, to see that each question was fully and truthfully answered. There...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCarty v. New York Life Insurance Company
... ... 279; St ... Louis v. Weakly, 50 Ark. 397; Cuthbertson v ... North, 96 N.C. 480; Walker v. State, 46 Kan ... 312; New Albany v. Fields, 10 Ind. 187; May, Ins ... §§ 183, 185, 156; ... ...
-
Franklin Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Franks
... ... on such agreement, which was not kept ... 2 ... EQUITY. No departure arises from amendment setting up state ... of facts different from bill, if character of relief sought ... remains same ... Though ... amendment sets up a state of facts ... requirements of the policy and that the transfer was a ... nullity. See, also, Okes v. Fire Ins. Co., 12 Pa ... Co. Ct. 341; Walker v. State Ins. Co., 46 Kan. 312, 26 P ... The ... fourth ground of demurrer is that, "The cause of action ... stated in the bill of ... ...
-
Southern Insurance Co. v. White
...his answers to be true, will not be heard to say he was ignorant of its contents, in the absence of fraud or mistake. 2 S.E. 258. See also 26 P. 718; May on Insurance (2 ed.), secs. 156, 185; 23 La. An. 209; 45 Wis. 622; 26 N.E. 230; 22 A. 107; 15 S.W. 166; 10 Ind. 187. OPINION WOOD, J. Thi......
-
Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Short
...of fraud, and the insurer has not." So it was held in Ins. Co. v. Fletcher, 117 U. S. 519, 6 Sup. Ct. 837, 29 L. Ed. 934; Walker v. Ins. Co., 46 Kan. 312, 26 Pac. 718; Briggs v. Ins. Co., 65 Mich. 52, 31 N. W. 616; Ins. Co. v. Freedman, 159 Mich. 114, 123 N. W. 547, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 298;......