Court Opinion

ID: 6417704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 11:57:24.700938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:51:37.927228
License: Public Domain

Ames, J.
The defendant insists that the original policy did not take effect for the reason that the premium was not paid; and also that it was cancelled before the loss occurred. It is not denied that the plaintiff paid the amount of the premium, but the defendant insists that this payment was upon the new policy. It appears that the original policy soon after its issue found its way back into the defendant’s hands, and that a new one was issued by it, which it insists is still outstanding and in force, and upon which it professes to be ready to pay the loss.
But the plaintiff claims that he was not a party to this substitution ; that it was transacted without his knowledge or consent; that it was not consented to by any person acting under any authority express or implied from him; that it was the result of mistake which did not come to his knowledge till after the loss occurred, and that the effect of the new policy is not merely to insure Kingsbury the mortgagee against loss, but also to require him in case of loss to assign the mortgage to the defendant, and thereby to deprive the plaintiff of all benefit from the policy. If the original policy took effect when it was first issued, and we see no reason to doubt it, it would continue in force until it was can-celled or modified by mutual consent. The alleged substitution of a new and different policy in its place could not be made by the defendant without the consent of the plaintiff, or of some person acting by his authority. Whether there had been any such consent or authority was a question of fact, and should have been submitted to the jury. The keeping of the new policy by Kings-bury the mortgagee for seven months, was a matter eminently proper for their consideration, as having some tendency to show an acceptance by the plaintiff of the alleged new arrangement. It was a mistake however to rule that as a matter of law it con stituted an acceptance on the plaintiff’s part. He should have been permitted to show that he gave no authority to any one to make the substitution, and that he had no knowledge of the circumstances and matters of fact relied upon by the defendant. If the alleged cancellation occurred without his express consent, *244or under such circumstances that his concurrence should not be implied, the defendant is liable upon the original policy, and the case should have been submitted to the jury with an instruction to that effect. Exceptions sustained.