Court Opinion

ID: 9826367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:49:12.764972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:01.628126
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Cothran:
I concur in the result of this opinion prepared by Mr. Acting Associate Justice Ramage, and for that reason desire to express my views of this case upon somewhat different lines.
It appears that on April 30, 1920, the insurance company issued to the defendants a policy of fire insurance covering certain buildings, and in an amount not stated in the record for appeal. The policy was not introduced in evidence at the trial, but it appears elsewhere that the insurance was for a term of five years beginning April 30, 1920. The premium for the first year was paid in cash at the time of the issuance of the policy, and at the same time the defendants executed and delivered to the insurance company their note for $320.72, .payable in four equal annual installments of $80.18, on the 1st day of May in each of the years 1921, 1922, 1923, and 1924, without interest, together with expenses of collection and attorney’s fees. The note provided that the failure to pay any installment at maturity should work a suspension of the policy so long as such default continued, and that the company would not be responsible for a loss occurring during such suspension, and *105that the policy should lapse until payment should be made to the company at its office in Atlanta. It also provided that any such default would, at the option of the company, effect a maturity of the entire note.
The insured failed to pay the installment which was due on May 1, 1921, and also the installments which were due in May, 1922, and May, 1923. In June, 1923, the plaintiff instituted this action for the full amount of the note, $320.72, and for a reasonable attorney’s fee. No interest upon the note was asked.
The defendants in their answer set up several defenses, but the only one that requires consideration is .that the default of the defendants in paying the installment which was due on May 1, 1921, effected a cancellation of the entire note and relieved them from all obligation to pay it or any part of it.
At the trial before his Honor, Judge Sease, the plaintiff offered the note in evidence, and rested. The answer admitted that the installment which was due on May 1, 1921, had not been paid. There was, therefore, nothing more for the plaintiff to prove. The attorney for the defendants then moved for a nonsuit substantially upon the ground taken in the answer above referred to.
The Circuit Judge sustained this contention, holding that the default in the payment of the installment due May 1, 1921, canceled the note and the insurance. He, however, refused the motion for a nonsuit, holding, in substance, that, as the insured, up to May I, 1921, had secured insurance for a year at the five-year term rate of $$0.18, which was less than the rate for a single year would have been, the defendants should pay to the plaintiff the difference between the longfferm rate and the short-term rate, which without any evidence he assumed to be $15.00. Of his own motion, therefore, he directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $15.00 plus $3.75 attorney’s fee, total $18.75.
From the judgment entered upon this verdict (I assume), *106the plaintiff has appealed upon exceptions which fairly raise the points hereafter considered. The appeal should be determined upon a review of the construction placed upon the contract evidenced by the note sued upon by the Circuit Judge. In that construction set forth above I think that he was- in error.
The matter is absolutely concluded by the case of Continental Insurance Co. v. Boykin, 25 S. C., 323. Continental Insurance Co. v. Hoffman, 25 S. C., 327. Security Co. v. Etheredge, 109 S. C., 32; 95 S. E., 109. Robinson v. Insurance Co., 51 Ark., 441; 11 S. W., 686; 4 L. R. A., 251. Insurance Co. v. Coleman, 6 Dak., 458; 43 N. W., 693; 6 L. R. A., 87. Insurance Co. v. Buckley, 83 Pa., 293; 24 Am. Rep., 172, cited by Acting Justice Ramage, which under practically similar contracts, sustain the right of the insurance company to recover the full amount of the note. The other defenses set up by the answer have not been considered, and are, of course, open to the defendants.See Insurance Co. v. Young, 132 S. C., 34; 129 S. E., 129.
Messrs. Acting Associate Justices J. H. Marion and R. O. Purdy concur.