Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-01-17
COURT DECISIONS.
DIOESTED BY w. B. MARTIN.
Exclusively for Virgin:an-Pilot)
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest to
Our People.
GRADES v. t. NJ. F. ms. co.

CRABBs v. t. NJ. f. ms. co.
| Supreme Court Of North Carolina.
December 5, 1899.
PARTNERS IN AN INCORPORATED
COMPANY HAVE AN(INSURABLE
INTEREST IN PROPERTY CON-
VEYED TO THE COMPANY.
THEY MAY RECOVER ON A POLL
CY INsURING THEIR PROPERTY,
ALTHOUGH INSURED IN THEIR
AGENTS NAME, 1T HAVING
BEEN SO INSURED BY THE
AGENT OF THE INSURANCE
| COMPANY WITH KNOWLEDGE
OF ALL THE FACTS.
This was an action by Grabbs and
others against the Farmers Mutual
Fire Insurance Association to recover
on n fire policy. The points decided
appear from the opinion OF the court.
| The court says
We are of opinion that there was no
error either in the admission of tcsti-
mony or the charge of the court. The
deed Of Spainhour 10 the Kings Cabin
Farmers Alliance Tobacco Manufact-
uring Company, made upon a. valuable
consideration. conveyed at least an
equitable title in the land to the indi-
viduals composing the partnership.
Having thus an equitable, if not q
legal, title to the land. they had an
insurable interest therein. ANY per-
son may insure who has an estate in
the property subject to damage or de-
struction by fire. An insurab bic interest
does not necessarily imply ownership"
In tho hofOra t,,lr
the plaintiffs had an insurablc interest
In the property destroyed, and could in
sure 1T. with the express or implied as
sent of the insurer, In the name of their
agent or trustee
This brings us to the question wheth-
er the plaintiffs can recover in the face
of the stipulations in the policy as to
The ownership of the property and the
conditions of waiver. We think they
can. The plaintiff Crabs testifes that
he fully and candidly informed the
agent Of defendant company as to the
ownership of the property before the
policy was issued, and in this he is cor
roborated by the witness Vest on cross
examination. 1t is not denied that
Vest was the agent of defendant, and
as such issued the policy. While not
shown by the record in this case. it Is
well known that, as n general rule.
fire insurance policies are issued in n
different way from those of life insur-
ance companies. The latter are usu-
ally issued directly from the home
Office. while fire insurance policies are
generally sent to the local agent in
blank, and are filled ur, signed. and
issued by him. The blanks, while pur-
porting to be signed by higher
| officers of the company. usually
| nave their names simply printed
thereon in autographs fac sim
lie. Under such circumstances can
it be doubted that the policy Is
really issued by the agent, who, for all
purposes connected with such insur-
ance, is the alter ego of the insurer?
That he is, seems too we'll settled to
need citation of authority, and there
fore his knowledge is the knowledge of
| the company AS the knowledge OF the
agent was the knowledge of the com
pany, We have n case where the in
surer. with full knowledge OF existing
facts. received the premium, and issued
Il policy of insurance which he knew
would be absolutely void if strictly
construed. In justice to the company
we must construe that 10 be waiver
which would otherwise be n deliberate
fraud. such as no court could sanction
or permit Wagering po1Icics are not
permitted on the part oe the insured:
neither can they be allowed on the
part Of the insurer. We think the rule
is we'll settled that where an insurance
company life or FIRE. issues n policy
with full knowleds, of existing facts
which. by its terms, would work for
fixture of the policy, the insurer must
be held to have waived all such condi-
tons, at least to the extent Of Its know
ledge, actual or constructive. 1t cannot
be permitted to knowingly issue a
worthless policy upon valuable con-
sideration. An implied waiver is in the
nature of an estoppel in pals, which
might well be enforced by any court of
equity under such circumstances. At
| firmed