| Summary: | BARKLEY v. QUICK 127 independent contract has arisen by which the assignee acquires all the rights of the assignor. 19 Cyc. 635 When an insurance policy is thus assigned, the company is deemed to have waived all defenses available against the assignor at such time, not inhering in the estate or interest of the assignee, and also all breaches of conditions, past or present, of which it then knew. 19 Cyc. 795; Hall v. Niagara F. Ins. Co. 93 Mich. 184, 18 L.R.A. 135, 32 Am. St. Rep. 497, 53 N. W. 727 Ellis v. Insurance Co. of N. A. 32 Fed. 646. When policies of insurance are canceled, the insured or his assignec is entitled to a return of the unearned premiums. Phoenix Assur. Co. v. Munger Improved Cotton Mach. Mfg. Co. 92 Tex. 297, 49 S. W. 222. While courts, under the circumstances here existing, are quite unan imous in according some remedy, they are not in harmony in their course of reasoning as to that result. Some proceed on the theory of ratification, some on the theory of adoption, and others on the theory of estoppel. 27 Cyc. 837(g) Poe v. Dorrah, 20 Ala. 288, 56 Am. Dec. 196; Roundtree v. Holloway, 13 Ala. 357; Ross v. Pearson, 21 Ala. 473; Oliver v. Camp, 9 Ala. App. 232, 62 So. 469; Pracht v. Daniels, 20 Colo. 100, 36 Pac. 845; Goodnow v. Wells, 76 Iowa, 774, 38 N. W. 172; Goodnow v. Stryker, 61 Iowa, 261, 16 N. W. 486; Holbrook v. Clapp, 165 Mass. 563, 43 N. E. 508; Greenland v. Wecks, 49 N. H. 472; Nutter v. Sydenstricker, 11 W. Va. 535; Lee v. Virginia & M. Bridge Co. 18 W. Va. 299; Barnett v. Watson, 1 Wash. (Va.) 372 A contract is only a meeting of the minds of the parties as to certain reciprocal obligations. Contracts are construed under certain well defined rules, some of which are declared by our statutes. Comp. Laws 1913, §§ 5896, 5903, 5907, 5909, 5915. “Although, on its face and by its express terms, the contract is obliga tory on one party only, yet if the intention of the parties and the consideration upon which the obligation is assumed is that there shall be correlative obligations on the other side, the law will imply it.” 9 Cyc. 333 (III). And, in case of lack of mutuality at its inception, such defect was cured by the subsequent sale of the property by the promisor, after full performance by the promisee. 9 Cyc. 333 If in the progress of the trial evidence is introduced by either party
|
|---|