{ "id": 8651550, "name": "CALDWELL v. INSURANCE CO.", "name_abbreviation": "Caldwell v. Insurance Co.", "decision_date": "1905-11-22", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "100", "last_page": "105", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "140 N.C. 100" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "133 N. C., 367", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657709 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/133/0367-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 N. C., 93", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272730 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/110/0093-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 N. C., 8", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8683684 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/75/0008-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 580, "char_count": 11819, "ocr_confidence": 0.463, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.746213919444488e-07, "percentile": 0.9632880140888522 }, "sha256": "7900b2ee330e36b000ce4be48caf3425759d20904c71b8ae1d6d7e4bec847cba", "simhash": "1:a0719b84e673b046", "word_count": 2133 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:16:12.663031+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "CALDWELL v. INSURANCE CO." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Connor, J.,\nafter stating the case: The testimony on the part of the plaintiff tends to show that she is an illiterate colored woman, having ten (10) children. That sometime during the year 1895, while she was engaged as a cook at the Buford Hotel in Charlotte, the superintendent of the defendant company sent for her to come to his office. That upon going to the office he asked her if she had any objection to being \u201cwritten up,\u201d to which she replied that she knew nothing about it \u2014 did not know what insurance meant. He said that he would tell her, to which she replied that if he did, she would know nothing about it then, to which he replied, \u201cYou will have a nice hearse, nice carriage and a nice funeral.\u201d She said, \u201cI can\u2019t feel the ride in the hearse and I can\u2019t see the funeral procession.\u201d He said, \u201cYou will have a heap of money,\u201d to which she responded, \u201cI don\u2019t want the money if I\u2019m dead. I have got to go to work at 3 o\u2019clock in the morning and am not going to take my money to pay insurance.\u201d He said, \u201cI will tell you what you can do. You can come in for ten years and after ten years you can go out.\u201d She said, \u201cI don\u2019t know anything about this. I have been living with white people ever since I was born. I don\u2019t know \u2019 anything about it and I don\u2019t want to fool with it.\u201d He said, \u201cAunty, you can go in for ten years.\u201d He said, \u201cThat after ten years I could draw out the claim and if anything happened to me the claim would be paid.\u201d That, upon the faith of these representations, she took the policies, paying for some years the weekly instalments or premiums thereon. That sometime thereafter a lady with whom she was employed read the policies and in consequence of what she said to plaintiff she saw Col. Jones, a lawyer in Charlotte. That she after-wards went to the agents of the company and complained that the policies were not as represented. Some of the policies were taken up. and others given her in their stead. That after much going and coming, she refused to pay any further premiums. She told the agent that her time was up, and be told her that if she got anything she would have to get it by law. We have not set out all of the testimony of the plaintiff; that portion which we have set forth, and there was nothing in her testimony contradictory thereof, shows the gist of the transaction. Defendant demurred to the evidence and moved the court to dismiss the action. We concur with His Honor in bis refusal to grant the motion. There was ample evidence that the plaintiff was led to believe that she could \u201cdraw out\u201d at the end of ten years. She had in her own, but unmistakable way, refused to be beguiled by the attraction held out to her, regarding a fine funeral and a \u201cheap of money\u201d at her death. It was only when the agent held out the inducement that she could \u201cdraw out\u201d which she understood, and he must have intended that she should understand, to mean getting the amount due her at the end of ten years, that she consented to take the policies, or, as the agent expressed it, \u201cbe written up.\u201d\nIn what way, other than receiving the amount due her at the end of ten years, was she to \u201cdraw out\u201d her claim, at the end of that period ? It is hardly probable that it was in the mind of the agent to gain her confidence and secure her application by assuring her that, if at the end of ten years she grew weary of paying the weekly instalments, she should have the privilege of drawing out empty handed, leaving the whole amount paid in the vaults of the company. She does not appear to be a person who would consent to be \u201cwritten up\u201d on such terms. If her testimony is true, she was induced to insure upon the representation made to her, as an inducement, that in her old age she would reap the fruits of her industry and economy during the ten years. Her testimony in this respect is uncontradicted; the superintendent, with whom she had the conversation, was not introduced. His Honor carefully and correctly explained to the jury the law governing the case, placing upon her the burden of proof in the strongest language which\u2019 this court has approved in cases where mutual mistake was alleged. He said: \u201cThe burden is upon the plaintiff to show by clear, strong and convincing proof that this transaction was fraudulent and that she was making these payments under representations made by the defendant that were not true. The burden, I say, is on the plaintiff to satisfy you that this was a fraudulent transaction.\u201d He instructed the jury, at considerable length, what constituted fraud in a transaction of this character, at all times putting upon the plaintiff the burden of proof. We find no error in this respect. He further charged them: \u201cIf you find that there was fraud in the transaction and that afterwards the plaintiff ascertained that the policies were not what she contracted for with the agents, and that after this she went on and paid the premiums and kept her life and the lives of the others insured and took the benefit, then she could not raise this question of fraud, although there may have been fraud in the beginning, unless you further find that the defendant\u2019s collecting agent and local superintendent lulled her into security and led her to believe that she would get the face of the policies at the end of ten years, or unless she paid the premiums under protest.\u201d To the last clause of this instruction the defendant excepted for that there was no evidence that she paid under protest. Without undertaking to set forth the testimony, it is sufficient to say that we have given it a careful examination and find that when she first learned that there was something wrong with her policies she endeavored to get them straight, without success. She says that she would go to one agent and he would send her to another and this course was continued until they finally cancelled the policies. She narrates her trials in her own simple and natural way, showing that she was bewildered in the intricate mazes and confusing obscurities of life insurance policies. In this resp\u00e9ct she is not singular. In the only way open to her she was constantly protesting that something was wrong about her insurance. She does not appear to have received much light from the source to which she went and was entitled to go. There was ample evidence to sustain His Honor\u2019s charge and the verdict of the jury. She proved an excellent character; her testimony both in manner and matter was well calculated to carry conviction to the minds of the jurors. The plaintiff is evidently one of the few remnants of a type of her race illustrating its highest virtues. In the simple duties of life incident to her station, she exhibits a store of saving common sense, when sought out and invited by an insurance agent to visit his office and discuss the most intricate, promising and sometimes disappointing mode of investing surplus earnings, she tells the agent that she knows nothing of it, and will know nothing when he has illuminated the subject, it is not strange that she gets into trouble. She could not read the policies and it is no serious reflection upon her intelligence to surmise that if she could have done so, she would not have been very much wiser. She did resist the blandishment to which those of her race usually succumb \u2014 \u201ca nice funeral\u201d \u2014 -nor did she surrender to the persuasive assurance for which many accredited with more wisdom, spend a life of slavery, \u201ca heap of money\u201d at her death. There is a vast deal of sound philosophy and sense in the answers made by her to the agent. When, however, the appeal is made to that fear which so constantly throws its dark shadows over human life, poverty in old age \u2014 and the assurance is given, as found by the jury, that at the end of ten years she could draw out her claim, she consents to \u201cbe written up.\u201d His Honor correctly announced the law which gives relief, the jury upon ample evidence have found the facts as testified by the plaintiff. It is admitted that the policies do- not entitle her to receive the amount paid in or any other amount at the end of ten years; that on the contrary, she forfeits all that she has paid. Upon the verdict the law declares that as she cannot have what was promised to her, she must have her money back with interest. If the defendant has been, compelled to carry the risk during the life of the policies without compensation, it must look to its accredited agent, whom the jury finds made the false representation. This court has uniformly held that in such cases the measure of relief is the amount paid with interest. Braswell v. Ins. Co., 75 N. C., 8; Lovick v. Ins. Ass\u2019n, 110 N. C., 93; Makely v. Legion of Honor, 133 N. C., 367.\nThe judgment must be\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Connor, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "Plummer Stewart and C. D. Bennett for the plaintiff.", "W. B. Rodman for the defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CALDWELL v. INSURANCE CO.\n(Filed November 22, 1905).\nInsurance \u2014 False Representations by Agent \u2014 Measure of Relief \u2014 Estoppel\u2014Instructions.\n1. In an action to recover premiums paid on a life policy, a demurrer to the evidence was properly overruled when it appeared that the plaintiff, an illiterate colored woman, was induced to take a policy upon the false representation of defendant\u2019s agent that she could draw out and get the amount due her at the end of ten years.\n2. The instruction that \u201cIf you find that there was fraud in the transaction and that afterwards the plaintiff ascertained that the policies were not what she contracted for with the agent, and that after this she went on and paid the premiums and kept her life and the lives of the others insured and took the benefit, then she could not raise this question of fraud, although there may have been fraud in the beginning, unless you further find that the defendant\u2019s collecting agent and local superintendent lulled her into security and led her to believe that she would get the face of the policies at the end of ten years, or unless she paid the premiums under protest,\u201d is supported by the evidence.\n3; In an action to recover insurance premiums, where the verdict establishes the fact that the insurance was obtained by the false representation of defendant\u2019s agent, the measure of relief is thp amount paid with interest.\nActioN by Dinah Caldwell against Life Insurance Co. of Virginia, beard by Judge M. II. Justice and a jury, at tbe March Term, 1905, of tbe Superior Court of Mbck-LBNBUR.G-. From a verdict for tbe plaintiff, the defendant appealed.\nTbe plaintiff alleges that\u2019 sometime during tbe year 1895 she was induced by tbe representation made to her by defendant\u2019s agent, to take out policies upon her own life and tbe lives of her children, in defendant company. That tbe agent represented to her as an inducement to take out said policies, that at tbe end of ten years she could withdraw tbe amount due ber. That, after paying the premium on said policies for a number of years, she learned that she was not .entitled to withdraw her money at the end of ten years, as represented. She charges that the representations upon the faith of which she took out the policies, were false and fraudulent and that she was deceived by them. She demands the return of the money paid by her, etc.\nDefendant company denies the material allegations of the complaint and avers that if she was misled by any statements made by the agent at the time the policies were issued, she soon thereafter had full knowledge thereof and continued to pay the premiums, whereby she waived any right which she may have had and ratified the contract as it was made and set out in the policies; that she failed to pay the premiums in accordance with the terms of the policies and forfeited the amount 'paid. The case was submitted to the jury upon a single issue. Erom a judgment following a verdict for the plaintiff, defendant appealed.\nPlummer Stewart and C. D. Bennett for the plaintiff.\nW. B. Rodman for the defendant." }, "file_name": "0100-01", "first_page_order": 136, "last_page_order": 141 }