Procedural Posture
Appellant insured sought reimbursement from respondent insurer for a settlement paid to a person injured by the insured's vehicle. The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California) entered judgment in favor of the insurer, finding that the policy between the parties had been terminated prior to the accident. The insured appealed.
Overview
The insured was a highway carrier and his insurance policy required a certificate that was issued by the railroad commission. The insured requested that his agent cancel the policy with the insurer, which the agent did. The agent sent a notice of termination of the policy to the railroad commission, effective March 26, 1943, which was after the date of the accident that gave rise to the insured's liability. The insured contended that as a matter of law the policy could not be effectively cancelled as between the parties prior to the end of a statutory 10 day period of notice to the railroad commission and that the evidence did not support a holding that as a matter of fact the parties had terminated it prior to that time. The court agreed with the insured. The notice provision was not subject to waiver as claimed by the insurer because the purpose of the notice provision was the protection of the public. In addition, the insurer gave notice to the railroad commission that the policy was cancelled "effective as of the 26th day of March 1943" and in a letter to the insured's agent, stated that a charge would be made for the remaining time that the policy was in force.
Outcome: caci conversion
The court reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of the insurer on the claim for reimbursement for amounts paid by the insured to settle a claim.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff seller sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) in favor of defendant buyer. The seller sought to recover judgment on a check that the seller alleged was issued and for valuable consideration delivered to the seller by the buyer. The buyer admitted the execution and delivery of the check and the demand and refusal of payment but denied that the check was given for a valuable consideration.
Overview
A seller filed an action against a buyer to recover judgment on a check that the seller alleged was issued and for valuable consideration delivered to the seller by the buyer. The buyer admitted the execution and delivery of the check and the demand and refusal of payment but denied that the check was given for a valuable consideration. The lower court found in favor of the buyer, and the seller appealed. On appeal, the court found that the buyer gave the check to the seller in payment for a ready-cut house that the seller contracted to manufacture and deliver to the buyer. The court found conflict in the evidence but sufficient evidence to support a finding that the contract was cancelled by mutual agreement. The court also found sufficient evidence to support a finding that the parties agreed to execute a new contract, which was never consummated. The court concluded that with the cancellation of the contract by mutual agreement, the consideration for the check wholly failed, as the buyer claimed. The seller could not recover on the check.
Outcome
The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court.
0 kommentar(er)
