Court Opinion

ID: 9831084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:48:04.783904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:30.573270
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It was alleged that the agent of plaintiff in error, Jones, on January 11, 1917, verbally instructed defendant in error to cancel the Evans policy, No. 25272. Jones swore that he so instructed Maloney, the latter denied this, and the jury found that Jones did not give such instruction. They answered that the words “canceled fiat,” on Maloney’s record book of the policy, had a line drawn through *1083them by Jones, which signified that the policy should be continued in effect; but, in addition, the jury found that plaintiff in error, ■after January 11, 1917, instructed defendant in error to cancel and take up policy No. 25272 issued to R. M. Evans. In addition to this, the jury found that it was not the intention of Jones that Maloney should act as agent of 'the company after January 11, 1917. The ■facts show that Jones visited Dublin toi terminate the agency there, and he did terminate it, and from that date Maloney was not the agent of the company, and did not act as such. The insurance company aftér that date had no authority to call on Maloney to perform any service for it, as his agency had been terminated.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.