Goodman v. Georgia Life Ins.

66 So. 649, 189 Ala. 130, 1914 Ala. LEXIS 204
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJune 11, 1914
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 66 So. 649 (Goodman v. Georgia Life Ins.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Goodman v. Georgia Life Ins., 66 So. 649, 189 Ala. 130, 1914 Ala. LEXIS 204 (Ala. 1914).

Opinions

SOMERYILLE,. J.

The bill is wholly Avanting in equity.

Under the express provisions of the policy of insurance, the assured,- the auto company, had no right of action against the insurance company, except for liabilities actually discharged by the payment of money. Not having met this essential condition of the indemnity contract, the auto company could not itself maintain any action on-the policy. Certainly a stranger to the contract cannot do so-either directly or indirectly.-

Complainant’s theory is that a court of equity may treat the contract as made for the benefit of any person injured by the auto -company, and this without re[132]*132gard -to its terms and limitations. This theory can find no support in any principle of law or equity, and is too untenable for serious discussion. Courts cannot tamper with and change the terms of contracts, nor can they substitute as beneficiaries thereunder unnamed and unintended strangers who have nothing whatever to do' with either the contracts or the contractors. To exercise such powers would be to usurp despotic authority.

If the insurance company received the funds of the auto company in- payment of the policy premium under circumstances which make their diversion from the coffers of the auto company a material fraud upon complainant, he might recover the amount of the premium in a proper proceeding; but he cannot claim the fruits of the contract.

The demurrers were properly sustained.

Affirmed.

Anderson, C. J., and Mayfield and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Quinlan v. Liberty Bank and Trust Co.
575 So. 2d 336 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1991)
Southern Guaranty Insurance Company v. Jones
188 So. 2d 537 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1966)
Board of School Com'rs of Mobile County v. Hudgens
151 So. 2d 247 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1963)
Mooradian v. Canal Insurance Company
130 So. 2d 915 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1961)
Melco System v. Receivers of Trans-America Ins. Co.
105 So. 2d 43 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1958)
Reed v. Hill
80 So. 2d 728 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1955)
Baker v. Baldwin County Bank
168 So. 141 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1936)
Kuntz v. Spence
67 S.W.2d 254 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1934)
Lander v. Jordan
59 S.W.2d 959 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1933)
Ray v. Moxon
56 S.W.2d 469 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1933)
Cuellar v. Moore
55 S.W.2d 244 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1932)
Kipkey v. Casualty Ass'n of America
238 N.W. 239 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1931)
Zieman v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
238 N.W. 100 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1931)
Hughes v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
134 So. 461 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1931)
Continental Auto Ins. Underwriters v. Menuskin
132 So. 883 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1931)
Globe Indemnity Co. v. Martin
108 So. 761 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1926)
Combs v. Hunt
125 S.E. 661 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1924)
Elliott v. Belt Automobile Ass'n
100 So. 797 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 So. 649, 189 Ala. 130, 1914 Ala. LEXIS 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodman-v-georgia-life-ins-ala-1914.