{
  "id": 11270740,
  "name": "JOHN UNDERWOOD v. GERMANIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Underwood v. Germania Life Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1910-03-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "274",
  "last_page": "276",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "152 N.C. 274"
    }
  ],
  "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": "124 N. C., 410",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 N. C., 431",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 228,
    "char_count": 3662,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.457,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.026754263579386e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3734694570996224
    },
    "sha256": "52ffd5b23c1551fd205b14fc4d66b16123293fb54c4b42f451b1cc3dbe98e33a",
    "simhash": "1:6a70d4c535293349",
    "word_count": 648
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:47.463636+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN UNDERWOOD v. GERMANIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clare, O. J.\nThis is an action on two cheeks, for $500 each, drawn by the cashier of the Memphis agency of the defendant company in favor of R. B. Hall, its manager for North Carolina and Tennessee, and indorsed by him to the plaintiff. The plaintiff testified that Hall \u201ctold me he had to- get off a balance to his life insurance company, and if I would arrange to let him have $1,000 he would return it to me.\u201d No other consideration was shown. The plaintiff was a local agent of defendant company at Fayetteville, N. C.\nIn brief, the manager of the defendant company, unable to remit the balance due by him to his company, borrowed $1,000 of the plaintiff, and afterwards indorsed to the plaintiff the company\u2019s checks which he had caused a local agency to draw in his favor for the amount. If this was'the transaction, there is no shadow of a consideration to the company for the two checks. There is no evidence that the company owed Hall the $1,000 for which these checks were drawn.\nThe loan was a personal debt of Hall, and the plaintiff knew the money was to be used_to square Hall with his company, and he knew that Hall had no right to repay him with the company\u2019s checks. His Honor properly nonsuited the plaintiff. The money, on plaintiff\u2019s own testimony, was not borrowed in the name or on the responsibility of the company, besides there is no evidence that it was within the scope of his agency to borrow money for the company, and certainly without express authority this was not within the function of an insurance agent. It was not error to reject hearsay evidence of the subsequent statement of a vice president of the company to prove such, authority. If the agency had such unusual scope it shopld have been shown by direct evidence.\nThere is no evidence that any part of this $1,000 was ever sent the company, though if the money had been sent to the company by Hall to make good his balance this would not have created any indebtedness by the company to repay the plaintiff the money borrowed from him by Hall. What benefit could it be to the company to receive what Hall owed it, if thereby it became indebted to the plaintiff in that amount? .There is no evidence that the company, if it received the money, knew that Hall had borrowed it of the plaintiff.\nThere is no evidence of ratification by the company and Hall had no authority to give the company\u2019s check for his individual liability. Barnhardt v. Star Mills, 123 N. C., 431; Sprinkle v. Indemnity Co., 124 N. C., 410. Tbe other exceptions require no discussion.\nThe judgment of nonsuit is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clare, O. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Goolc and Davis for plaintiff.",
      "Q. K. Nimoclcs and John W. Hinsdale for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN UNDERWOOD v. GERMANIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.\n(Filed 31 March, 1910.)\n1. Insurance \u2014 Principal and Agent \u2014 Loan to Agent \u2014 Principal\u2019s Liability \u2014 Consideration.\nChecks of an insurance company signed by one agent, payable to another, and by him indorsed to one who knowingly advanced money, at the time, to the latter to enable him to remit to the company and due it by him as such agent, may not be collected by suit of the indorsee against the company, there being a failure of consideration moving to the company.\n2. Insurance \u2014 Principal and Agent \u2014 Scope of Authority \u2014 Evidence\u2014 Hearsay \u2014 Statement of Vice President.\nHearsay evidence of a statement of a vice president of an insurance company that its agent had authority to borrow money in its behalf is incompetent; and, not being within the usual scope of such agencies, it must be shown by direct evidence.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Lyon, J., at October Term, 1909, of CUMBERLAND.\nThe facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.\nGoolc and Davis for plaintiff.\nQ. K. Nimoclcs and John W. Hinsdale for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0274-01",
  "first_page_order": 320,
  "last_page_order": 322
}