Mitchell v. Universal Life Insurance
Supreme Court of Georgia
Evidence. Fraud. Insurance. Before Judge James Johnson. Muscogee Superior ‘Court. May Term, 1874. The policy stated that the premiums were payable annually on 23d of May. It was proposed to show that the first premium had been paid by a draft, payable in October, with interest from date, and ‘that the agent had said the other premiums might be so paid.
Read the full summary
Evidence. Fraud. Insurance. Before Judge James Johnson. Muscogee Superior ‘Court. May Term, 1874. The policy stated that the premiums were payable annually on 23d of May. It was proposed to show that the first premium had been paid by a draft, payable in October, with interest from date, and ‘that the agent had said the other premiums might be so paid. It was proposed to show that, on being afterwards appealed- to, the agent had again so said. • With this statement, the above head-notes report the case.
1Opinion of the Court
McCay, Judge.
1. The contract in this case is plain and unambiguous. If it may be contradicted, there is no contract that may not. Nothing appears here but that the parties made a plain stipulation in writing, with the agreement at the time that it was not to be the real contract. It is not pretended that the plaintiffs thought it was written differently, or that there was any fraud in writing it as it is. All parties knew it was so written. It is said this is a fraud and a great hardship; but is not this always true where the rule excluding parol evidence is allowed ? The very offer of parol…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Parris & Son, Inc. v. CampbellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
- Lippman v. Ætna InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1899
- Griffith v. StrandWashington Supreme Court · 1898
- Delaware Insurance v. Pennsylvania Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
- Smith v. NewtonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1877
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.