Sealey v. ALBANY INSURANCE COMPANY

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Sealey v. ALBANY INSURANCE COMPANY

117 S.E.2d 744, 253 N.C. 774, 1961 N.C. LEXIS 438

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 20, 1961

Docket740

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 117 S.E.2d 744 (Sealey v. ALBANY INSURANCE COMPANY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sealey v. ALBANY INSURANCE COMPANY, 117 S.E.2d 744, 253 N.C. 774, 1961 N.C. LEXIS 438 (N.C. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

*777 HiggiNS, J.

The plaintiff introduced the insurance policy which he alleged was issued and delivered to him for the appellant by “its authorized representative, C. G. Mauney.” The policy provided for cancellation. Mr. Mauney offered to testify that no premium was ever paid and that for that reason he had authority to and did cancel the policy in the manner provided. When the court refused to admit the testimony, Mauney identified his contract with the appellant and offered to testify that he had been acting under it for three years; that he knew the signature of the officer who signed it. The court still refused to. admit the contract which showed Mauney’s. authority to cancel. The evidence was sufficient to identify and authenticate the contract. It should have been admitted in evidence. If the court excluded the agent’s oral testimony on the ground his authority was in writing, then the exclusion of the writing was certainly prejudicial.

We apprehend' that in this instance counsel and the court gave undue heed to the well recognized principle of law that agency and its extent may not be proved by the declarations and statements of the agent. The proposition is correct in a proper ease. This is not such a case. “We know of no rule of evidence that does not allow an agent to go on the witness stand and testify that he is an agent. It is not a declaration, but the sworn evidence of a witness.” Machine Co. v. Seago, 128 N.C. 158, 38 S.E. 805. “This is not a case of proving an agency by the declaration of the alleged agent, but by the testimony of an agent, under oath.” Hill v. Bean, 150 N.C. 436, 64 S.E. 212. “It is a rule of universal application in this jurisdiction that agency cannot be proved by the mere declaration of the agent. . . . Of course, the agent may testify under oath as to the agency.” State v. Lassiter, 191 N.C. 210, 131 S.E. 577. “Proof of agency as well as its nature and extent may be made by the direct testimony, but not by the extra-judicial declarations, of the alleged agent.” Jones v. Light Co., 206 N.C. 862, 175 S.E. 167. “While proof of agency, as well as its nature and extent may be made by the direct testimony, but not by alleged agent, . . . nevertheless it is well established that, as against the principal, evidence of declarations or statements of an alleged agent made out of court is not admissible either to prove the fact of agency or its nature and extent.” Commercial Solvents v. Johnson, 235 N.C. 237, 69 S.E. 2d 716.

In this case the appellant offered and the court excluded oral testimony of the witness Mauney as to his authority to cancel the insurance policy here involved. Likewise, the court excluded the documentary evidence of the agent’s authority after its identity and au *778 thenticity were established not only by the testimony, but by the stipulation of counsel after a copy had been furnished them as contemplated by G.S. 8-91. For the court's error in excluding pertinent testimony on the issue of cancellation, there must be a

New trial.

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

*777 HiggiNS, J.

The plaintiff introduced the insurance policy which he alleged was issued and delivered to him for the appellant by “its authorized representative, C. G. Mauney.” The policy provided for cancellation. Mr. Mauney offered to testify that no premium was ever paid and that for that reason he had authority to and did cancel the policy in the manner provided. When the court refused to admit the testimony, Mauney identified his contract with the appellant and offered to testify that he had been acting under it for three years; that he knew the signature of the officer who signed it. The court still refused to. admit the contract which showed Mauney’s. authority to cancel. The evidence was sufficient to identify and authenticate the contract. It should have been admitted in evidence. If the court excluded the agent’s oral testimony on the ground his authority was in writing, then the exclusion of the writing was certainly prejudicial.

We apprehend' that in this instance counsel and the court gave undue heed to the well recognized principle of law that agency and its extent may not be proved by the declarations and statements of the agent. The proposition is correct in a proper ease. This is not such a case. “We know of no rule of evidence that does not allow an agent to go on the witness stand and testify that he is an agent. It is not a declaration, but the sworn evidence of a witness.” Machine Co. v. Seago, 128 N.C. 158, 38 S.E. 805. “This is not a case of proving an agency by the declaration of the alleged agent, but by the testimony of an agent, under oath.” Hill v. Bean, 150 N.C. 436, 64 S.E. 212. “It is a rule of universal application in this jurisdiction that agency cannot be proved by the mere declaration of the agent. . . . Of course, the agent may testify under oath as to the agency.” State v. Lassiter, 191 N.C. 210, 131 S.E. 577. “Proof of agency as well as its nature and extent may be made by the direct testimony, but not by the extra-judicial declarations, of the alleged agent.” Jones v. Light Co., 206 N.C. 862, 175 S.E. 167. “While proof of agency, as well as its nature and extent may be made by the direct testimony, but not by alleged agent, . . . nevertheless it is well established that, as against the principal, evidence of declarations or statements of an alleged agent made out of court is not admissible either to prove the fact of agency or its nature and extent.” Commercial Solvents v. Johnson, 235 N.C. 237, 69 S.E. 2d 716.

In this case the appellant offered and the court excluded oral testimony of the witness Mauney as to his authority to cancel the insurance policy here involved. Likewise, the court excluded the documentary evidence of the agent’s authority after its identity and au *778 thenticity were established not only by the testimony, but by the stipulation of counsel after a copy had been furnished them as contemplated by G.S. 8-91. For the court's error in excluding pertinent testimony on the issue of cancellation, there must be a

New trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 S.E.2d 744, 253 N.C. 774, 1961 N.C. LEXIS 438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sealey-v-albany-insurance-company-nc-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack