{ "id": 8609498, "name": "J. W. McCAIN v. HARTFORD LIVE STOCK INSURANCE COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "McCain v. Hartford Live Stock Insurance", "decision_date": "1925-11-25", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "549", "last_page": "553", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "190 N.C. 549" } ], "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": "213 Ill. App., 75", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5461785 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/213/0075-01" ] }, { "cite": "230 Ill. App., 348", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "165 Mass., 321", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 817558 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/165/0321-01" ] }, { "cite": "219 Ill. App., 77", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5437321 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/219/0077-01" ] }, { "cite": "60 Ind. App., 233", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind. App.", "case_ids": [ 2438437 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ind-app/60/0233-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 Iowa 358", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 8647887 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/iowa/87/0358-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 Wis., 337", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8703478 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wis/107/0337-01" ] }, { "cite": "266 S. W., 912", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 N. W., 157", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "case_ids": [ 5353022 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sd/47/0599-01" ] }, { "cite": "144 N. W., 543", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "14 Pet., 77", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "Pet.", "case_ids": [ 3334645 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "81" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/39/0077-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 Wheat., 227", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "Wheat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "185 N. C., 348", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656072 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/185/0348-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 N. C., 121", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655501 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/185/0121-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 Tenn., 685", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Tenn.", "case_ids": [ 8535362 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/tenn/137/0685-01" ] }, { "cite": "161 Ark., 597", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1388593 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/161/0597-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 L. R. A., 358", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L.R.A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "162 S. W., 779", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "26 At., 78", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "92 U. S., 377", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 8782 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/92/0377-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 N. E., 842", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "30 Fed., 545", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 6744109 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f/30/0545-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 Fed., 689", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 3816533 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f/51/0689-01" ] }, { "cite": "126 N. C., 166", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658730 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/126/0166-01" ] }, { "cite": "124 N. C., 395", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659485 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/124/0395-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 N. C., 480", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11278805 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/71/0480-01" ] }, { "cite": "188 N. C., 597", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654560 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "600" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/188/0597-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 Vt., 437", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Vt.", "case_ids": [ 766058 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/vt/63/0437-01" ] }, { "cite": "169 N. C., 35", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656398 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/169/0035-01" ] }, { "cite": "179 N. C. 402", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656051 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/179/0402-01" ] }, { "cite": "175 N. C., 314", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659096 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/175/0314-01" ] }, { "cite": "173 N. C., 558", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271052 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/173/0558-01" ] }, { "cite": "173 N. C., 532", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270907 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/173/0532-01" ] }, { "cite": "172 N. C., 408", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11254178 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/172/0408-01" ] }, { "cite": "172 N. C., 543", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11254580 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/172/0543-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 N. C., 330", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652355 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/155/0330-01" ] }, { "cite": "160 N. C., 399", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271875 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/160/0399-01" ] }, { "cite": "153 N. C., 124", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271618 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/153/0124-01" ] }, { "cite": "152 N. C., 206", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270333 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/152/0206-01" ] }, { "cite": "152 N. C., 232", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270482 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/152/0232-01" ] }, { "cite": "145 N. C., 114", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11252444 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/145/0114-01" ] }, { "cite": "140 N. C., 262", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651867 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/140/0262-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 N. C., 390", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652715 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/139/0390-01" ] }, { "cite": "138 N. C., 379", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269470 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/138/0379-01" ] }, { "cite": "128 N. C., 366", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8660515 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/128/0366-01" ] }, { "cite": "125 N. C., 389", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11274024 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/125/0389-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 N. C., 128", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8682141 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/77/0128-01" ] }, { "cite": "203 Mass., 299", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 5680082 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/203/0299-01" ] }, { "cite": "22 Conn., 235", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Conn.", "case_ids": [ 438328 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/conn/22/0235-01" ] }, { "cite": "166 N. C., 55", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11268585 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "62" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/166/0055-01" ] }, { "cite": "162 N. C., 521", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271844 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/162/0521-01" ] }, { "cite": "129 N. C., 319", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 N. C., 480", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650632 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "486" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/96/0480-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 N. C., 158", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8649636 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/96/0158-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 N. C., 70", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11276579 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/66/0070-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 647, "char_count": 11639, "ocr_confidence": 0.48, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.16793172610154e-07, "percentile": 0.9565362691029478 }, "sha256": "78fe5c3f34ece0c0d220df6b585630736db2ca4702d0cb3b70e6c752117ee125", "simhash": "1:9605a2dc13c001a8", "word_count": 2084 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:29.672014+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "J. W. McCAIN v. HARTFORD LIVE STOCK INSURANCE COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Vaeseb, J.\nThe defendant submits several contentions that the judgment of nonsuit is correct. We need only consider one of these, to wit, the provision in the contract that the policy does not cover animals not in good health and entirely free from sickness or injury when the policy is delivered to plaintiff. The policy makes the application, and its provisions are a part of the policy itself. It is, therefore, just as much a part thereof as if written in the policy. Bobbitt v. Ins. Co., 66 N. C., 70; Ormond v. Ins. Co., 96 N. C., 158; Cuthbertson v. Ins. Co., 96 N. C., 480, 486; Fuller v. Knights of Pythias, 129 N. C., 319; Heilig v. Ins. Co., 162 N. C., 521; Schas v. Ins. Co., 166 N. C., 55, 62; Sheldon v. Ins. Co., 22 Conn., 235; Lee v. Ins. Co., 203 Mass., 299; Duncan v. Ins. Co., 6 Wend. (N. Y.), 488.\nThe delivery of the policy is admitted by plaintiff to have been 31 July, 1924, \u201cin the morning mail.\u201d The mule had been dead two days.\nThe plaintiff is a sub-agent of the defendant. It is a fair inference from his evidence that he is a man of intelligence, active and prompt in business, and fully capable of understanding all provisions of the application and policy of insurance. The contract is what the parties agreed, and not what either party thought. Brunhild v. Freeman, 77 N. C., 128; Building Co. v. Greensboro, ante, 501.\nRules of construction are only aids in interpreting contracts that are either ambiguous or not clearly plain in meaning, either from the terms of the contract itself, or from the facts to which it is to be applied. When such a situation is presented the terms of the contract are construed against him who prepared it, the insurer, and in favor of the insured. Kendrick v. Ins. Co., 124, N. C., 315, 320; Bank v. Ins. Co., 95 H. S., 673; Grabbs v. Ins. Assn., 125 N. C., 389; Bank v. Fidelity Co., 128 N. C., 366; Rayburn v. Casualty Co., 138 N. C., 379; Bray v. Ins. Co., 139 N. C., 390; Jones v. Casualty Co., 140 N. C., 262; R. R. v. Casualty Co., 145 N. C., 114; Arnold, v. Ins. Co., 152 N. C., 232; Higson v. Ins. Co., 152 N. C., 206; Powell v. Ins. Co., 153 N. C., 124; Penn. Ins. Co., 160 N. C., 399. Tbis applies also to standard policies. Gazzam, v. Ins. Co., 155 N. C., 330; Collins v. Casualty Co., 172 N. C., 543; Lyons v. Knights of Pythias, 172 N. C., 408; Moore v. Accident Assurance Corp., 173 N. C., 532; Trust Co. v. Ins. Co., 173 N. C., 558; Smith v. Fire Ins. Co., 175 N. C., 314; Guarantee Corporation v. Electric Co., 179 N. C. 402.\nAn insurance policy is only a contract, and is interpreted by the rules \u25a0of interpretation applicable to other written contracts, and the intention of the parties is the object to be attained. Crowell v. Ins. Co., 169 N. C., 35.\n\"When clearly and unambiguously expressed it does not require construction and its words will be taken in the plain and ordinary sense. Crowell v. Ins. Co., supra; Bray v. Ins. Co., supra; R. R. v. Casualty Co., supra; Durand v. Ins. Co., 63 Vt., 437; Vance on Insurance, 593; Power Co. v. Casualty Co., 188 N. C., 597, 600.\nThe provision in the policy that the insurance shall not be in force or take effect unless the policy is delivered to the plaintiff while the animal covered by the policy is in good health and entirely free from sickness or injury, is not in conflict with the other provisions of the policy. That the animal described in the policy shall be in good health at the time of its delivery, is a condition precedent to the right of the plaintiff to recover. Whitley v. Ins. Co., 71 N. C., 480; Ormond v. Ins. Co., 96 N. C., 158; Ross v. Ins. Co., 124 N. C., 395; Ray v. Ins. Co., 126 N. C., 166; Perry v. Ins. Co., 150. N. C., 143.\nIt is admitted in the instant case that the mule described in the policy died before the policy was countersigned at High Point, by the agent Mendenhall, and two days before the policy was sent through the mail to the plaintiff, defendant\u2019s sub-agent at 'Waxhaw, N. C. As soon as defendant\u2019s agent at High Point was informed by plaintiff that the mule had died on 29 July, the check sent for the premium was returned and a return of the policy was requested. It is clear that the minds of the parties never met upon a contract of insurance on the life of the mule in controversy. R. R. v. Casualty Co., supra; Power Co. v. Casualty Co., supra; Paine v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co., 51 Fed., 689; Misselhorn v. Mut. Reserve Fund Life Assn., 30 Fed., 545; Reserve Loan Life Ins. Co. v. Hockett, 73 N. E., 842; Piedmont and Arlington Life Ins. Co. v. Ewing, 92 U. S., 377; McClave v. Mut. Reserve Life Assn., 26 At., 78; Smith v. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co., 162 S. W., 779; Dumas v. North western National Ins. Co., 40 L. R. A., 358; National Life Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 161 Ark., 597; Life & Casualty Ins. Co. v. King, 137 Tenn., 685.\nIn Fox v. Ins. Co., 185 N. C., 121, tbis Court allowed tbe case to be submitted to the jury because it was not an action on the policy which had not been delivered, but an action in tort for a negligent failure to deliver the policy. Plaintiff's cause of action was bottomed on his loss by the defendant\u2019s negligence in not delivering the policy and thereby making an insurance contract.\nIns. Co. v. Grady, 185 N. C., 348, is not in conflict with the views herein expressed. This case involves the delivery of a policy when the facts were known to the insurer and the-subject of insurance still existed. In the instant case the subject-matter of the insurance, to wit, the mule, did not, at the time of the delivery, exist.\nParties would not knowingly make an insurance contract regarding a mule not in existence. The thing contemplated to exist and whose existence was an indispensable basis for their contemplated agreement, had no existence; therefore, there was no contract. Eliason v. Henshaw, 4 Wheat., 227; Carr v. Duval, 14 Pet., 77, 81; Misselhorn v. Mut. Reserve Fund Life Assn., supra; Paine v. Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co., supra; Reserve Loan Life Ins. Co. v. Hockett, supra; Piedmont and Arlington Life Ins. Co. v. Swing, supra; McGlave v. Mut. Reserve Fund Assn., supra; Bowen v. Prudential Ins. Co., 144 N. W., 543; Hartsock v. Livestock Ins. Co., 223, Ill. App., 433; Dumas v. Northwestern National Ins. Co., supra; National Life Ins. Co. of U. S. v. Jackson, 161 Ark., 597; Life & Cas. Co. v. King, 137 Tenn., 685; Ridinger v. Am. Live Stock Ins. Co., 201 N. W., 157; Hartford Dive Stock Ins. Co. v. Henning, 266 S. W., 912; Johnston v. Northwestern Live Stock Ins. Co., 107 Wis., 337; Alston v. Ins. Co., 7 Kansas App., 179; Green Bros. v. N. W. Livestock Ins. Co., 87 Iowa 358; Live Stock Ins. Co. v. Bartlow, 60 Ind. App., 233; Hensel v. Live Stock Ins. Co., 219 Ill. App., 77; Swain v. Live Stock Ins. Co., 165 Mass., 321; Hough v. Live Stock Ins. Co., 230 Ill. App., 348; Binnie v. Live Stock Ins. Co., 213 Ill. App., 75.\nAs stated in Ormond v. Ins. Co., supra, it is unnecessary for us to consider the other contentions of the defendant.\nApplying these principles to the case at bar, we hold that there was no error in granting the motion for judgment as upon nonsuit, and the judgment appealed from, is\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Vaeseb, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "3. B. Adams for plaintiff.", "Myers & Snerly and John G. Sikes for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "J. W. McCAIN v. HARTFORD LIVE STOCK INSURANCE COMPANY.\n(Filed 25 November, 1925.)\n1. Insurance! \u2014 Contracts\u2014Policies\u2014Application.\nTbe statements, agreements and warranties in an application for insurance, are to be construed as a part of tbe policy thereafter issued, when it is so stated therein.\n2. Same \u2014 Live Stock \u2014 Health\u2014Policy Stipulations. \u25a0\nConstruing a provision in a livestock policy of insurance that the animal must be in good health and entirely free from sickness or injury, and not to be considered as in force until countersigned by the general agent of insurer: Held,, a policy not so countersigned or delivered until after the death of the insured animal was unenforcible.\n3. Contracts \u2014 Agreement\u2014Insurance\u2014Policies.\n1 Where the general agent of the insurer rightfully declines to recognize the validity of a livestock policy of insurance, countersigned and delivered after the death of the animal insured, and returns the premium paid by the insured to him, the policy sued on is invalid upon the ground that the minds of the parties had not agreed or come together so as to make a binding contract.\n4. Same \u2014 Interpretation.\nWhere the written contract is clearly expressed without ambiguity, its language will control, leaving nothing for interpretation under the rules otherwise applicable in case of ambiguity.\n5. Same.\nA written contract is the expression of the agreement of the minds of the parties, and not what either party erroneously thought it was.\n6. Same \u2014 Ambiguity.\nIn case of ambiguity in the words of a written contract, reasonable doubts are resolved against the one who has prepared it.\nAppeal by plaintiff from UNION Superior Court. Bryson, J.-\nErom a judgment of nonsuit plaintiff appeals.\nAffirmed.\nThis action was instituted in tbe court of a justice of tbe peace to recover $100 on account of tbe death of a mule alleged to have been insured by defendant. Tbe defendant entered a general denial.\nTbe evidence for plaintiff tended to show that plaintiff received by mail a policy of insurance. \u25a0 This policy describes one mare mule named \u201cKit,\u201d 3 years old, used for farming, valued at $100.\nTbe policy states that \u201cit does hereby insure J. W. McCain, of Wax-haw, North Carolina, from 28 July, 1924, at noon\u201d and it is recited also that this is done \u201cin consideration of tbe statements, agreements,- and warranties contained in tbe application, or applications, upon which this policy is based, and which are hereby referred to and made a part of this contract.\u201d\nThat the mule was on plaintiff\u2019s farm near Waxhaw, in the charge of Axariah Clifton, plaintiff\u2019s tenant. The mule died during the morning of 29 July; that plaintiff had not then received the policy, but that it reached him by mail on the morning of 31 July; that'plaintiff immediately sent check for premium, giving notice of the death of the mule; that plaintiff was local agent of defendant, and that defendant had a State agent at High Point. The letter returning plaintiff\u2019s check says: \u201cIn view of the fact that this policy was written in this office on 28 July, it could not have possibly been delivered by the time .this mule died. You are advised that the company can admit of no liability whatsoever. We will consider that no insurance has been in effect at all and the entire premium will be returned,\u201d with a request for return of the policy.\nPlaintiff refused to return the policy, advising that he considered his claim legal and would contend for it. Plaintiff\u2019s checks covering premium on. this policy were all returned to him. There was no \u201cbinder\u201d given; no agent had the right to write a \u201cbinder.\u201d Plaintiff admitted that his application contained the following: \u201cIt is agreed that this insurance shall not be in force or effect until and unless this application shall be accepted and favorably passed upon by the above-named insurance company, policy of insurance issued by said company and the premium paid thereon, and policy delivered to me while the animal or animals covered by said policy is in good health' and entirely free from sickness or injury.\u201d\nThe application for policy was received by defendant 26 July, 1924. The policy \"provides that it shall \u201cnot be binding until countersigned by the general agent or other duly authorized representative of the company at High Point, North Carolina.\u201d It was countersigned by Menden-hall, agent at High Point, N. C., on 30 July, 1924.\n3. B. Adams for plaintiff.\nMyers & Snerly and John G. Sikes for defendant." }, "file_name": "0549-01", "first_page_order": 653, "last_page_order": 657 }