Court Opinion

ID: 8799279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 14:25:13.067192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:03:48.868583
License: Public Domain

1 McPHERSON, Circuit
Judge. I concur in the foregoing opinion,, although with some hesitation on one point only. I am heartily in. *343agreement with the legal principles that have been so clearly stated; the renewal receipt was a mere offer, or option, and could not become a contract until it had been accepted by Vogel. It seems to me therefore that the principal subject of inquiry should be the conduct of Vogel rather than the conduct of the company. The company had made its position clear by offering to renew, and its offer should certainly be taken in connection with the custom to allow the insured 60 days, or perhaps even longer, to make up his mind. But, as 1 read the evidence, the court should have instructed the jury that Vogel never did make up his mind, and therefore that no contract of renewal was ever made. Upon this point, however, the other members of the court hold a different opinion, and believe that enough evidence was offered to go to the jury. I accept their view as more likely to be correct than my own, and I file this memorandum merely to emphasize the legal proposition upon which we are all agreed — that the renewal receipt was only an offer and had no binding force until Vogel accepted it.