Ætna Insurance v. Rosenberg
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Hempstead Circuit Court. Rueus D. Hearn, Judge. 1. The policy was cancelled. The cancellation took effect the moment the agent received the policy from the appellees for cancellation. 36 Mo. App. 126; lb. 142. 2. The surrender of the policy by insured to the agent, and the acceptance of it by the latter with the mutual intention of cancelling, is a cancellation. 62 N. Y. 599; 39 Mich. 489; 90 Pa.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Hempstead Circuit Court. Rueus D. Hearn, Judge. 1. The policy was cancelled. The cancellation took effect the moment the agent received the policy from the appellees for cancellation. 36 Mo. App. 126; lb. 142. 2. The surrender of the policy by insured to the agent, and the acceptance of it by the latter with the mutual intention of cancelling, is a cancellation. 62 N. Y. 599; 39 Mich. 489; 90 Pa. St. 220; 6 N. Y. S. 602, 876. When a person signs papers pertaining to important business, he cannot be permitted to escape their binding effect by stating that he did not read them. 35…
1Opinion of the CourtBunn, C. J.
On the 6th of March, 1894, appellees, the plaintiffs in the court below, filed their complaint against the appellants in the Hempstead circuit court, and on the 10th of April, 1894, defendants filed their answer. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant moved for a new hearing. The same was overruled, and they tendered their bill of exceptions, and take an appeal. This is an action on a policy of fire insurance issued to plaintiffs by the Aetna Insurance Company. The Union Guaranty Company executed the bond to the State of Arkansas for the benefit of holders of policies in said insurance…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Polemanakos v. Austin Fire Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1913
- National Union Indemnity Co. v. Standard Accident Co. of DetroitSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
- Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949