{ "id": 1554934, "name": "Security Life Insurance Company of America v. McCray", "name_abbreviation": "Security Life Insurance Co. of America v. McCray", "decision_date": "1916-05-29", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "202", "last_page": "206", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "124 Ark. 202" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "12 Fed. 465", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 6719564 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/f/12/0465-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 Ark. 269", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "45 Ark. 415", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "13 Am. Rep. 529", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "Am. Rep.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "61 Minn. 330", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 1650237 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/minn/61/0330-01" ] }, { "cite": "112 S. W. 327", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "193 Fed. 512", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 45148 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/f/193/0512-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 Atl. 377", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "10 Wall. 589", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "Wall.", "case_ids": [ 3437300 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/77/0589-01" ] }, { "cite": "193 Fed. 512", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 45148 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f/193/0512-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 Atl. 377", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 384, "char_count": 7316, "ocr_confidence": 0.589, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.513224467560543e-07, "percentile": 0.6678773550118173 }, "sha256": "5b78c983ef2da8db76494def2a6d2e9dddb669ce9af96448cf1f8bf75fc4fed0", "simhash": "1:07727b8307f58328", "word_count": 1250 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:14:49.378710+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Justice Hart being disqualified did not sit in case." ], "parties": [ "Security Life Insurance Company of America v. McCray." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Kirby, J.,\n(after stating the facts). It is conceded that the contract was terminated in accordance with its provisions on the 20th day of November, \u2022 1914, and admitted by appellee that he had received all renewal commissions to that time, his contention being that under the terms of the contract he is entitled to the designated per cent, of renewals on the three classes of policies written for the term of five years of the policies\u2019 existence.\nThe parties had the right to agree upon the terms of their contract and their rights are determined by its provisions, the whole of the contract and all its terms being considered in arriving at their intention in making it, each provision being given full effect as far as the language of the whole instrument will permit.\nIt is plain from the provisions of said section 3-A, that there was only an agre\u00e9ment to pay the agent as long \u201cas this contract is in force.\u201d Then follows the stipulation as to the amount of the commissions upon the first year\u2019s premiums and the renewal commissions upon- subsequent premiums paid in cash upon the entire table of policies designated, with additional renewal commissions of 2 per cent, for five years on premiums of policies written on the first three plans or classes designated in the schedule or table. The payment of 5 per cent, commission on the policies specified in the table, extended to the life of the policy and there is no more reason for saying that the agent\u2019s right to collect the 7 per cent, renewal commission for five years on the policies in the first three dasses designated continued after the termination of the contract of agency, than to say that he was entitled'notwithstanding its termination, to the 5 per cent, renewal commissions for the life of all the policies written.\nIt is insisted that the last clause of said section 18, providing that the contract may be changed in certain events, or for the termination of it upon the company\u2019s ceasing to do business in the State, which concludes, \u201cexcept as to any rights the agents may have acquired as to renewal commissions,\u201d indicates a contrary intention and the right of the \u2022 agent \u25a0 to' renewal commissions after the termination of the contract, but we do not think so.\n.. \u25a0 The insurance company recognized its liability to the payment of all commissions, renewal commissions included, up to the time of-the termination of the contract, in accordance with section 11 providing for the termination thereof by the act of the, parties, and, under which, it was terminated, and paid him \u00a1 all commissions of , every kind due to that date, as shown by his own statement. It was evidently only the intentidh by this latter clause to protect the agent\u2019s right-t\u00f3!>renewal commissions upon the termination of the contract by the company\u2019s being refused permission or ceasing to do business in the State, and whether the renewal \u2019commissions could have 'been exacted by the agent upon the termination' of the contract under such contingency for a longer time than the date of its termination, is not necessary to decide, since it was terminated by act of the parties.\nThe agent having the right to receive commissions only so long as the contract continued in force and it having been annulled was without right to any commissions on renewal premiums,' after the date of the termination of his contract of agency. Stagg v. Insurance Co., 10 Wall. 589; Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Washington Life Ins. Co., 193 Fed. 512; Scott v. Travelers Ins. Co., 63 Atl. 377, 16 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 919; 2 May on Ins., section 576.\nThe contract of agency having been terminated by the act of the parties in accordance with its terms, which provided that the agent should receive commissions only, so long as the contract continued in force, ended his right to claim commissions thereafter and the court erred in holding otherwise. The judgment is reversed and the cause dismissed.\nJustice Hart being disqualified did not sit in case.", "type": "majority", "author": "Kirby, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "J. T. Bulloch and Bradshaw, Rhoton & Helm, for appellant; E. B. Buchanan, of counsel.", "John B. Crownover, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Security Life Insurance Company of America v. McCray.\nOpinion delivered May 29, 1916.\nPrincipal and agent \u2014 contract of agency \u2014 insurance - solicitor \u2014 commissions \u2014 termination of contract. \u2014 A contract of agency, laving been terminated ,by tbe act of the parties in accordance with its terms, which provided that the agent should receive commissions only so long as the contract continued in force, ended his right to claim commissions thereafter.\nAppeal from Yell Circuit Court, Dardanelle District; M.- L. Davis, Judge;\nreversed.\nstatement by the court.\nA. S. McCray brought this suit for the collection of certain renewal commissions, alleged to be due him under the terms of his agency contract for writing insurance for appellant company.\nIt is admitted that the written contract was terminated on the 20th day of November, 1914, in accordance with its' terms and all commissions \u2022 and renewals paid to that time, the suit being brought for commissions for renewals from said 20th day of November, 1914, the date of the cancellation of the contract.\nSection 3 (A) of the contract provides: \u201cThe company in consideration of the services to be rendered by the agent agrees to pay the agent, as long as this contract is in force, on all business written by him, a commission upon the first year\u2019s premium of each policy accepted and paid for in cash, and a renewal commission upon subsequent premiums, when paid in cash in accordance with the following tables\u201d which show the commisions to be 5> per cent, on all except three kinds of policies designated and \u201can additional renewal commission of 2 per cent, for five years will be paid on premiums of 'policies written on the first three plans scheduled above.\u201d\nSection 18 of the contract stipulates:\n\u201cIt is agreed that the provisions of this contract may be modified and changed without the consent of the agent if the same shall conflict with any state laws or rulings of any State Insurance Department; and should the license of the company to do business in the resident State of the agent, or any other State in this contract, at any time be withheld or revoked, or the company for any cause cease to do business in said State, this contract shall immediately terminate, except as to any rights the agent may have acquired as to renewal commissions.\u201d\nAppellee testified that he was entitled under the terms of the contract, notwithstanding the termination of it, to the $130 claimed as renewal commissions, and recovered judgment therefor, from which this appeal is prosecuted.\nJ. T. Bulloch and Bradshaw, Rhoton & Helm, for appellant; E. B. Buchanan, of counsel.\n1. Plaintiff failed to make a case. There was no liability after the contract was canceled. It was only binding as long as the contract was in force. 63 Atl. 377; 193 Fed. 512; 112 S. W. 327; 70 Id. 251; 61 Minn. 330; 2 May on Ins. (4 ed.), \u00a7 576; 49 Am. Rep; 637; 50 Id. 21; 78 Am. St. 522; 13 Am. Rep. 529. No indebtedness whatever \u2018was proven.\nJohn B. Crownover, for appellee.\nThe agent had a vested right in the renewals, and the cancellation of the contract did not divest his right \u201cacquired,\u201d in the renewals. Bouvier Diet., p. 61, 625; Cooley\u2019s Const. Lim., sections 356-7; 45 Ark. 415; 8 Cyc. 894. There was proof of the indebtedness and appellant-failed to prove payment. 65 Ark. 269; 12 Fed. 465." }, "file_name": "0202-01", "first_page_order": 226, "last_page_order": 230 }