Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-06-20
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest to
Our People.
DIGESTED BY ". B. MARTIN.
Exclusively forI -Pilot)
SPRINKLE V. KNIGHTS T. &
NJ. I. CO.

NJ. /. CO.
Supreme Court OF North Carolina.
April IL, 1899
AN INSURANCE COMPANY IS NOT
BOUND BY TIE KNOWLEDGE OF
ITS AGENT. WHO, IN DRAWING
THE APPLICATION FOR AS
SURED. FRAUDULENTLY FALSl-
FLED HIS ANSWERS CONCERN
ING HIS HEALTH, TO PREVENT
REJECTION OBJ HIS APPLICA-
TON.
This was an action against the de-
PENDANT insurance company on policy
Of insurance issued by it. The defend
ant alleged that the insured, in his an
Hwcrs TO questions in his application
with regard to his health, had made
false and fraudulent representations.
1t was proved by the evidence THAI the
assured had made two answers To the
Questions asked him by the agent of the
company. but that the agent had put
them down falsely and not as given by
the assured. From a judgment for
plaintiff defendant appealed.
The court says:
The testimony of DR.. Jay tended to
prove that the agent Parker. prac-
ticed a fraud-orisin ton the de-
PENDANT, in his procurement of the
policy. Parker testified that he wrote
the answers in the application truth
fully, and as they were made by the
assured, and evidence OF his good moral
character was introduced. The test-
mony of DR.. Jay. though. however sus-
picious 1t might appear, was evidence
in the cause; and it tended to prove
fraud and deceit on the part Of Parker.
The evidence of Jay tended 70 prove
that himself. the examining physician.
IL tlnn s,,1-t
engaged in the plan to cheat and de-
fraud the defendant. Parker protested
to be acting as the agent of defendant,
and the law required of him that he
should be faithful to his trust, and do
no act that would result designedly to
the Injury of his principal. II Jays
evidence was to be believed. Parker
was acting directly and purposely
against his principals interest He
must have known that, IF the company
could have knowledge OF his conduct,
IT would have repudiated the entire
transaction; for. according to Jays ev-
idence. the whole scheme was based on
fraud. and intended from the start to
deceive and 10 defraud the defendant.
Parker was acting entirely against the
interest of the company. and for him
self, or some one else; and by no rule
of law could he be the agent of the de-
PENDANT In such Il transaction. The
evidence OF Jay tended to prove that
Parker, the professed agent of the de-
PENDANT. set deliberately to work to
have his principal issue n policy OF in
surance upon the life of n man who
he knew had had diseases which de-
barred him from the benefits of in
surance In the defendant company.
In the case before the court, the evil
dence-a part of it-Went to show n
conspiracy to cheat and to defraud the
company, and that the leader of the
conspiracy was the professed agent OF
the company. This case does not fall
within any of our decisions in reference
to the largely increased powers of To-
cal agents of insurance companies,
growing out of changed business CON
dftions on their part The view or tho
law which the plaintiffs counsel con
tend that we should take in this case
would result in the destruction of all
business which is conducted through
the means OF agency, and in the over
turning OF one OF the chief purposes for
which all agencies are allowed to be
constituted,-thc faithful performance
OF duty by the agent, and the protec-
ton of the interests of the principal
committed to his charge. There was
error, and there must he n new trial.
The defendant must return the pre-
MUM before 1t will be allowed TO entcr
upon the new trial.