Court Opinion

ID: 9827080
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:07:52.416159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:22.442589
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In our original opinion in this cause we noted an indorsement upon á letter purported to have been written by S. h. Ewing, the state agent of the insurance company, to George B. Luper, vice president and general manager of ' said company, communicating *399the negotiations between himself and. Stuart in regard to the payment of the term insurance, and the transfer of the note sued upon in this cause, and upon said letter was the indorsement, “Received June 11, 1906.” We suggested in our opinion that this indorsement, taken in connection with other testimony, tended to show the receipt of the letter by the insurance company.- Upon reconsideration, we are inclined to think, as presented by the bill of exceptions and the record, that said indorsement on said letter would not be admissible testimony, unless connection was made with reference to the proper party representing the insurance company making said indorsement. However, we still think that the testimony was ample upon the receipt of the letter by the insurance company, considering Ewing’s evidence that it was the sole communication in regard to this matter, and with reference to which the appellant company intended to act when the indorsement was written upon the back of the note,, and the transfer of same was made to Stuart.
The motion is in all things overruled.
HALL, J., disqualified, not sitting.