Carolina Like Insurance v. Moultrie

148 S.E. 628, 40 Ga. App. 15, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 4
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJune 11, 1929
Docket19686
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 148 S.E. 628 (Carolina Like Insurance v. Moultrie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Carolina Like Insurance v. Moultrie, 148 S.E. 628, 40 Ga. App. 15, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 4 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. “Where parties, in the course of the execution of a contract, depart from its terms and pay or receive money under such departure, before either can recover for failure to pursue the letter of the agreement, reasonable notice must be given the other of intention to rely on the exact terms of the agreement. Until such notice, the departure is a quasi new agreement.” Park’s Annotated Code, § 4227.

2. “Where the insurer, by his custom and course of dealing with the in-' sured, in receiving, without objection, premiums or assessments past due, when he could have insisted upon a forfeiture, has induced the belief on the part of the insured that premiums or assessments can be paid within a reasonable time after they mature, the insurer can not claim a forfeiture because, at the time of the death of the insured, premiums or assessments were due by him which, had he lived, it is reasonable to suppose would have been accepted upon the same terms as those upon which other deferred payments had been received.” Bankers Health & Life Ins. Co. v. Givvins, 12 Ga. App. 378 (77 S. E. 203) ; Cotton States Life Ins. Co. v. Lester, 62 Ga. 247 (35 Am. R. 122); Moman v. Bankers Health & Life Ins. Co., 35 Ga. App. 565 (2) (134 S. E. 341).

3. Under the above-stated rulings and the facts of the instant ease, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was amply authorized, and none of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial show cause for a reversal of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

General American Life Insurance v. Samples
307 S.E.2d 51 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)
Abercrombie v. Howard, Weil, Labouisse, Fredericks, Inc.
220 S.E.2d 275 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1975)
Rivers v. Provident Indemnity Life Insurance
63 S.E.2d 607 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1951)
Sovereign Camp Woodmen of the World v. Muller
11 S.E.2d 92 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1940)
Sovereign Camp Woodmen of the World v. Hart
200 S.E. 296 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1938)
Schick v. Equitable Life Assurance Society
59 P.2d 163 (California Court of Appeal, 1936)
National Life & Accident Insurance v. Lain
179 S.E. 751 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Sovereign Camp W. O. W. v. Milton
180 S.E. 253 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Adams v. Washington Fidelity National Insurance
173 S.E. 247 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Smith v. Gholstin
164 S.E. 217 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
148 S.E. 628, 40 Ga. App. 15, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carolina-like-insurance-v-moultrie-gactapp-1929.