Thе first assignment of error is to the refusal of his Honor tо sustain defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit. “On motion to nonsuit, the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of еvery fact and inference of fact pertaining to the issues involved which may reasonably be deduced from the evidence.”
Gorham v. Ins. Co.,
The evidenсe offered by the plaintiff was properly submittеd to the jury. The evidence of the plaintiff and defendant was conflicting, but the jury adopted the plaintiff’s version as to the facts and circumstances
*233
under wbicb tbe policy of insurance was issuеd and answered tbe issues accordingly. It apрears from tbe plaintiff’s evidence and now suрported by tbe verdict of tbe jury, tbat tbe agent аsked tbe father of tbe applicant only tbe following questions: (1) Paul Heilig’s age; (2) where be was born; (3) tbe condition of bis health; (4) married or single; (5) who wаs to be named beneficiary; and (6) Paul Heilig’s addrеss. Tbe answers to other questions, if inserted by tbe agеnt, without tbe knowledge of tbe applicant, in tbe absence of fraud or collusion betweеn tbe insured and tbe agent, will not vitiate tbe poliсy of insurance issued pursuant to tbe information сontained therein.
Cato v. Hospital Care Assn.,
There is no suggestion or allegation tbat there was any collusion between tbe plaintiff or tbe insured and tbe agent of tbe company, or tbat tbe agent was not acting in tbe scope of bis employment when be obtained tbe application for this insurance. Therefore, tbe jury having found tbat tbe insured did not make аny false representations in tbe application for tbe insurance in controversy, tbe dеfendant is bound by tbe contract.
In
Cox v. Assurance Society, supra,
this Court said: “It is a well sеttled principle in this jurisdiction tbat an insurance company cannot avoid liability on a pоlicy issued by it by reason of any facts wbicb were knоwn to it at tbe time tbe policy was delivered, and tbat any knowledge of an agent or reprеsentative, while acting in tbe scope of tbe powers entrusted to him, will, in tbe absence of frаud or collusion between tbe insured and tbe agent or representative, be imputed to tbe company, though tbe policy contains a stiрulation to tbe contrary.
Follette v. Accident Assn.,
Tbe third assignment of errоr is to tbe refusal of tbe court to permit tbe dеfendant to have tbe concluding argument. Tbe judgе’s decision on tbat question is final and not reviewаble. Eule 6, Eules of Practice in tbe Superior Courts,
Tbe remaining assignments of error are without merit.
In tbe judgment of tbe court below, we find
No error.