Court Opinion

ID: 9828079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:05:25.029783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:43.253846
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Inaccuracies of fact appear, and are accordingly corrected. The medical report was received by the company presumably on November 13, 1927, instead of November 9; and the words “for collection merely” are eliminated.
The ruling was founded on the conclusion, and which conclusion is adhered to, that the letter of November 21,1927, evidenced approval by the company, of the medical examiner’s report for reinstatement, the unconditional acceptance of the insured’s check of date October 10, 1927, for the amount required for reinstatement, and the expressed consent to have the policy “reinstated.” There is no pretense of fraud on the part of the insured. The decision intended was that the facts operated to impute acceptance of the check itself as in the nature of payment *408of the amount for reinstatement to continue the policy in force and preclude a forfeiture. The giving of the check did not relieve the insured from payment in fact of the amount owing the company, but the iiability for such payment was enforceable on the check as an undertaking to pay. The remedy of the company was on the check, in view of its acceptance for the amount owing, as evidence of the .indebtedness for which it had been given. The default in payment of the check; after acceptance by the company, did not operate to forfeit the reinstated policy; there being no fraud.
The motion is overruled.