The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1900-04-10
Supreme Court Opinion in In
Surance Case.
GETS COMMISSION
oUTGRoWTH OF POLICY FOR
JOHN BECK.
Risk Was Cancelled After Part of
Premium Had Been Paid and the
Agent Sued to Recover His Com
missions-Justice Bartch Dissents
From the Opinion.

An opinion was handed down yester-
day by the supreme court in the case
Of w. j.. Reed VS.. Union Central Life
Insurance company of Cincinnati, ap-
pellant, in which the judgment-of the
lower court is affirmed. The opinion
is written by Judge Miner and concur
red in by Judge Baskin, Chief Justice
Bartch dissenting.
The case was tried before Judge Cher
~ last November, The plaintiff was.
from Dec. 81, 1896, to Sept. Is, 1898, an
agent Of the defendant company, and
on Aug. 2, 1897, wrote an insurance pol
icy for $100,0 900 on the life of John Beck,
which was accepted by the insurance
company. The premium ($5,702) for the
first year was paid oy Beck in three
promlssory notes. The first note of
$1,000 was paid at maturity. plaintiff
receiving $1,000 as commission.
Before the maturity of the second
note a rival agent stepped in and, by
urging to the defendant company thai
it had accepted a bad risk. prevailed
upon the company to cancel its policy
with Beck. AS a sop to the plaintiff
/ for his loss in commission G1,65D he
80 L-la 0C1CRL0N ELkN 1lOlAl
defendant, and was to get 10 per cent
extra commission IN all business there
after written by him.
The negotiations with Beck for the
surrender of the policy were conducted
by a third party, a Mr.. Waters, and
plaintiff was not a party to the trans
action further than in being present
while the negotiations were being pro-
ceeded with. The reasons given for the
cancellation of the Beck policy were
hat the insured was suffering from
Bright's disease and was also insolvent.
Beck was returned his unmatuTed notes
and also received a consideration of $500
in cash for the surrender of his policy
to the defendant company.
Plaintiff afterwards sued for the bal
ance of his commission and the jury
found for him.
The trial court, on the question Of
waiver by the plaintiff, instructed the
jury that if the plaintiff waived his
right under the contract he could not
recover. Waiver is the intentional re-
linquishment of a known right. If the
plaintiff was ignorant of the fact that
under his contract with the defendant
he was entitled to commissions on the
balance of the first years premiums
/ when the defendant purchased the sur
render of Becks policy, then he could
not be found to hive waived or relin-
quished his right to his commission.
The fact that the plaintiff deemed the
commission lost to him did not con-
stitute a waiver.
In summing up, Judge Miner says:
"AI the facts connected with the as
sumed waiver or estoppel of plaintiff S
right to the commission under the con-
tract and the purchase of the policy by
the defendant were sufficiently and
properly submitted to the jury by the
Instructions given by the court. Under
the circumstances of this case we find
no reversible error arising from the in
structions of the court to the jury; nor
do we find that the court erred in re-
fusing to give the instructions request
ed by the defendant. The defendant
voluntarily placed itself in a position
whereby it had no power TO collect the
notes. and cannot now be heard to say
that the maker was insOlvent when the
notes were surrendered"