Marks v. Hope Mutual Life Insurance

117 Mass. 528, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 282
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMay 8, 1875
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 117 Mass. 528 (Marks v. Hope Mutual Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Marks v. Hope Mutual Life Insurance, 117 Mass. 528, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 282 (Mass. 1875).

Opinion

Wells, J.

Under the ruling at the trial, the verdict must rest exclusively upon the written memorandum declared on as the contract of the defendant corporation.

[532]*532Assuming that the corporation could contract to insure otherwise than by a policy in the usual form and payment of the-premium, and that Simpson had full authority so to contract, and also that this writing was intended to bind the corporation and not Simpson personally, we are unable to give to the writing any effect except as an agreement to return the money received unless a policy should be issued and furnished to the plaintiff within thirty days.

It cannot operate as a present insurance for thirty days, or until a policy should be furnished, because that is not its purport. And if such a contract could be made out by proof of oral agreements and representations, adding to and varying the written memorandum, it would be a different contract from that declared on. It is not an absolute agreement to insure, or to make and deliver a policy. Its obligation would be satisfied at any time by declining the application and returning the money received. Reading the writing as if made and signed by the corporation itself, it disclaims the assumption of any liability by. way of insurance otherwise than by a policy duly issued to the party applying.

We are of opinion that the ruling which allowed the action to be maintained was wrong, and that the verdict must be set aside. Exceptions sustained.

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

Related

Dove v. Ark. National Life Ins. Co.
386 S.W.2d 495 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1965)
Manderville v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
4 Mass. App. Div. 361 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1939)
Hughes v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
163 Misc. 31 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1937)
Stonsz v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States
187 A. 403 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
Hart v. Travelers Insurance
236 A.D. 309 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1932)
DeCesare v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
180 N.E. 154 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)
Cherokee Life Ins, Co. v. Brannum
82 So. 175 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1919)
Fairbanks v. Kemp
226 Mass. 75 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1917)
Reserve Loan Life Insurance v. Hockett
73 N.E. 842 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1905)
Fairley v. B. R. Smith & Co.
87 N.C. 367 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1882)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
117 Mass. 528, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marks-v-hope-mutual-life-insurance-mass-1875.