Court Opinion

ID: 9828069
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:04:46.174425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:42.978931
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee complains of the statement made in our original opinion that as soon as defendant received checks from Smartt .for premiums on his policy he was given credit therefor on defendant’s books. We are now convinced that the testimony of R. Q. Travers, defendant’s secretary at Waco, who was the only witness on that point, does not conclusively support that recital in our opinion. According to his *336testimony, whenever Smartt’s checks were received, witness would make entry, on his card kept to show the state of his account, a notation showing receipt of the check and date of such receipt, but would make no entry showing that the check was accepted as payment of the assessment. The checks were then deposited in defendant’s ’Waco hank for collection, and if honored by the drawee bank in Fort Worth, that .would be treated as payment without any further notation on the books or notice to Smartt. But if the check was not paid by the drawee bank, then Smartt would be notified that his policy had lapsed and a blank application be sent to him to be filled out, and when the same was signed and returned and payment made of the necessary premiums therefor, his policy would be reinstated. However, other portions of his testimony tended to show that credit was given by the company for Smartt’s checks as soon as they were received. Such being the state of his testimony, it was a question for the jury to determine whether or not the check given for the assessment made July 21st was in fact accepted by the insurance company as payment of that assessment as soon as defendant received it.
And as pointed out in the motion, the record shows that the policy was declared forfeited for nonpayment of another assessment levied May 19th, but it was thereafter reinstated on application of the insurer.
With the foregoing corrections in our original conclusions, the motion for rehearing is overruled.