51 So. 724 | Ala. | 1910
— The complaint is on a promissory note for $78.96, dated March 6, and payable November 1, 1901, to the order of the maker. It was indorsed:
There are only two assignments of error: First. That the court erred in refusing to give the charge : “If they (the jury) believe the evidence they will find for the plaintiff.” Second. “If Allen (the plaintiff) was only a soliciting agent for the company, his agency terminated when the application was made and the policy was issued to Smith, and the tender to him, at the time he-asked for the payment of the note, was not a tender to the company.”
The first charge was properly refused. There was conflict in the evidence, and the pleas on which issue was joined were not proved without conflict. The evidence for the defendant tended to show that, when the policy was taken the plaintiff represented to him that the policy for $2,000 would increase to $3,500 in 20 years, and when the policy was given to him he found that the sum to which the policy would increase was a good deal less than that sum; that he rescinded the policy in March, 1901, through the mail, the policy having been applied for previously in the same month. He did not state how, or to whom, he rescinded it. The plain
The said second charge, asked by plaintiff, seems to be free from error, and should haAre been given. The question as to plaintiff’s being a mere soliciting agent
The opinion in this case was prepared by Justice HARALSON, and has been adopted by the court.
Reversed and remanded.