National Life Accident Ins. Co. v. Bridgeforth

Alabama Court of Appeals

National Life Accident Ins. Co. v. Bridgeforth

136 So. 865, 24 Ala. App. 486, 1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 110

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 4, 1931

Docket8 Div. 238.

StatusPublished

This text of 136 So. 865 (National Life Accident Ins. Co. v. Bridgeforth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

National Life Accident Ins. Co. v. Bridgeforth, 136 So. 865, 24 Ala. App. 486, 1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 110 (Ala. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMEORD, J.

This is the second appeal in this case. National Life Ins. Co. v. Bridgeforth, 220 Ala. 314, 124 So. 886. In that case the question here presented by defendant’s plea 12 was settled adversely to appellant, and this court is bound by the decision there rendered.

Plaintiff’s replications 1 and 2, to defendant’s special pleas 10, 11, 13, 16, and 18, present a complete answer to said pleas, and the demurrers to said replications were properly overruled. Both of the replications set up a waiver by the company of the defense alleged in the pleas and placed upon the plaintiff the burden of proving the allegations.

The cases of London & Lancashire Ins. Co. v. McWilliams, 215 Ala. 481, 110 So. 909, and Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Wood, 209 Ala. 380, 96 So. 250, cited by appellant, are not in point. In those cases the allegation in the replication undertook to bind the company to a waiver by the act of an agent without alleging the agent’s authority. In the instant case the allegation is that the defendant did the act. It then became a question of evidence on the trial as to the waiver, and in the absence of a bill of exceptions, we presume the proof to have been made.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMEORD, J.

This is the second appeal in this case. National Life Ins. Co. v. Bridgeforth, 220 Ala. 314, 124 So. 886. In that case the question here presented by defendant’s plea 12 was settled adversely to appellant, and this court is bound by the decision there rendered.

Plaintiff’s replications 1 and 2, to defendant’s special pleas 10, 11, 13, 16, and 18, present a complete answer to said pleas, and the demurrers to said replications were properly overruled. Both of the replications set up a waiver by the company of the defense alleged in the pleas and placed upon the plaintiff the burden of proving the allegations.

The cases of London & Lancashire Ins. Co. v. McWilliams, 215 Ala. 481, 110 So. 909, and Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Wood, 209 Ala. 380, 96 So. 250, cited by appellant, are not in point. In those cases the allegation in the replication undertook to bind the company to a waiver by the act of an agent without alleging the agent’s authority. In the instant case the allegation is that the defendant did the act. It then became a question of evidence on the trial as to the waiver, and in the absence of a bill of exceptions, we presume the proof to have been made.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 So. 865, 24 Ala. App. 486, 1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-life-accident-ins-co-v-bridgeforth-alactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack