Thurman v. Farmer's Mutual Fire Insurance

Citations

• 102 Miss. 77
• 58 So. 777

Syllabus

<p>1. Insurance. Action on note. Consideration.- Fraud. Question for jury.</p> <p>Where a fire insurance company brought suit on a note given by defendant to it for the premium upon a fire insurance policy which policy was received by defendant but returned to the company, and defendant testified on the trial that he did not read the application for such insurance, which was made out by the agent of the company upon whom he relied to fill it out correctly; that the understanding between himself and the agent was that a different policy was to be issued to him from that which he received; that he returned the policy, because it did not conform to the contract applied for and agreed by the agent to be issued. In such case a peremptory instruction for plaintiff should not have been given.</p> <p>2. Same.</p> <p>If the facts testified to by defendant were true the policy sent him was fraudulent as to him and he was not bound to keep» it, although he had signed an application, without actual knowledge of its contents, and at the instance of the agent, which, conformed to the terms of the policy.</p> <p>3. Same.</p> <p>In such case the application was admissible in evidence to contradict the defendant; but it was for the jury on .the whole facts to say whether or not he in fact and with full knowledge made the application and whether or not he did get the policy for which he applied or whether a fraud was perpetrated upon him.</p>