The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1885-05-27

applied for in the agents company, TO
which the agent assented. 1t also ap-
peared that the store house occupied by
Rivara did not belong TO him, that it
had no gas fixtures and was lighted with
coal oil lamps, and that Rivara kept
coal oil for sale-and that the agent
was aware of these facts also. The
agent visited the scene of the fire inn
mediately after its occurrence, and CON
versed with Rivara on the subject; and
a general adjuster of the company
went to Natchez 10 investigate the mat
ter. and told Rivara that he declined to
pay the loss or advise its payment In
many respects this testimony was con
tradicted by the defense. All OF the
numerous instructions asked by the
plaintiff were refused, except one, to the
effect that an agent with authority 70
issue policies was a general agent, and
notice TO him would be notice to the
company. To show that other and more
insurance had been obtained than was
AUTHORIZED, the defendant gave notice TO
produce certain policies, and proved by
the agent of other companies that these
policies had been issued. The plaintiff
objected co the introduction OF these
policies. partly on the ground that the
signatures thereto of the officers of the
companies were not proven 10 be gen
uiue; and the court oyerruled the Oblec-
| ton. The judgment was for the COM
pany, and Rivara appealed.
There is no just ground TO complain
| of the action of the court in overruhng
| the objection made to the policies read
in evidence in regard 10 other insurance
But refusing the instructions asked by
appellant, and giving those asked by
| appellee, was virtually instructIng the
| Jury to find for the latter. On the facts
| exhibited by the record, the law is not
so conclusive on the issues involved as
to dispense with the consideration ano
Judgment of jury upon them. There
were many questions in regard to the
authority. knowledge and statements Of
the agent which should have been lef
to the jury. 1t Is stated in the bill o
exceptions that appellants testimony
tended to sholr certain very material facts
and it was error TO refuse instruction
asked by appellant as to the legal eitec
} of such facts, if proven.
Good faith and fair dealing are re
, quired in contracts of insurance, as il
other contracts, and the rights of parti
are equally affected by fraud and undu
2 advantage.
The powers Of insurance agents t
II bind their companies vary. Thei
powers may be limited by the companie.
: but parties dealing with them as to ma
? tiers within the real or apparent scop
of their agency are not affected by sue
limitations without notice. An insu
ance agent, clothed with authority I
make contracts of Insurance and issu
policies, stands in the stead of the con
pany 20 the assured. The company
bound by his acts and declarations, an
notice to him is notice to them. If til
\ agent takes advantage of the illiterac
+ or ignorance Of the assured, or misleaC
him in any way, the company cannC
s avail itself of the wrong. And in sue
cases the fact that the contract is j
writing is not an insuperable obstac
in the way Of truth and justice. II
d written contract cannot be contradicte
: or varied by oral testimony; but sue
n testimony Is admissible, when necessar,
Y to show the circumstances under whic
r the policy was issued, and to effect q
/ estoppel as to any of its provisions.
/, A condition in an insurance polio
f prohibiting the use or deposit of certai
e articles m8y be waived; and it is wal
; ed if the agent taking the insuranC
l. knew at the time that the prohibite
e articles were or would be used or KEEP
: In such case, if the assured has bee
r guilty of no fraud, the insurer is esto
r ped from setting up the breach of Il
= condition. RereTsed.
Nugent & Neville, for appellant
d. Shelton, for appellee.