Parsons v. Knoxville Fire Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 28 May 1895 |
Parties | PARSONS et al. v. KNOXVILLE FIRE INS. CO. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. In an action on an insurance policy, which provided that, if the insured did not own the land on which the insured building was situated, the policy should be void, unless such fact appeared in writing thereon, it appeared that plaintiff did not, in his application, claim to own the land, and that defendant's agent knew at the time the policy was issued that plaintiff did not own it. Held, that defendant was estopped to claim a forfeiture for breach of such stipulation, though the policy provided that a waiver of any conditions thereof by the agent should be indorsed thereon.
2. An agent of an insurance company, who has authority to issue and countersign policies, may strike out parts of a provision in regard to the keeping of a set of books "locked in a fireproof safe" at night, on objection thereto by the proposed insurer.
Appeal from circuit court, Mercer county; Paris C. Step, Judge.
Action by W. E. Parsons & Son against the Knoxville Fire Insurance Company. From a verdict for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The instructions referred to in the opinion are as follows:
Defendant requested the court to give, among others, the following instructions: "(6) If the jury believe from the evidence that plaintiffs did not keep a set of books showing a complete record of business transacted by them, including all purchases and sales for cash or credit, together with the last inventory of their business, and that they were, at the time of the fire in question, and are now, unable to produce such books and inventory, then you are instructed that the policy of insurance in suit is null and void, and plaintiffs cannot recover the amount of insurance on their stock of merchandise." "(9) If the jury believe that plaintiffs did not keep any books showing their sales of goods and merchandise for cash, you are instructed that plaintiffs cannot recover any insurance on their goods and merchandise." "(12) The jury are instructed that the written application of plaintiffs for insurance, read in evidence, became, by its terms, and the condition of said policy, a part of the contract of insurance sued upon in this cause, and that by the terms of said application plaintiffs agreed to keep books showing purchases and sales for cash or credit, and last account of stock, and if the jury find from the evidence that plaintiffs failed to keep said books, or any of them, then plaintiffs cannot recover anything for the goods or merchandise burned in said fire, and the jury, as to such goods and merchandise, must find for the defendant." All of which instructions the court refused to give, and to the action of the court in so refusing the defendant at the time duly excepted.
Among those given at the request of plaintiffs, and of which defendant now complains, are the following:
Among those given by the court of its own motion over defendant's objection, are the following: "(6) If the jury believe from the evidence that plaintiffs did not keep a set of books showing a complete record of business transacted by them, including all purchases and sales for cash or credit, together with the last inventory of their business, and that they were, at the time of the fire in question, and are now, able to produce such books and inventory, then you are instructed that the policy of insurance in suit is null and void, and plaintiffs cannot recover the amount of insurance on their stock of merchandise, unless they further believe that the defendant waived the forfeiture of said policy after the fire, by requesting and accepting proofs of loss from plaintiffs." ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cohen v. Home Ins., Co.
...... corporation of New York, for recovery on two fire insurance. policies. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Judgment affirmed, the court ...238, 74. Am. St. Rep. 521; Ins. Co. v. Dowdall, 159 Ill. 179,. 42 N.E. 606; Parsons v. Ins. Co., 132 Mo. 583, 31. S.W. 117 ( affirmed in 132 Mo. 583, 34 S.W. 476); Godfrey v. ......
-
Leisen v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
......v. Insurance Co., 122 Mich. 256, 80 N. W. 1088;Home Ins. Co. v. Gibson, 72 Miss. 58, 17 South. 13;Flournoy v. Insurance Co., 80 Mo. App. 655;Parsons v. Insurance Co., 132 Mo. 583, 31 S. W. 117, affirmed in bank 132 Mo. 583, 34 S. W. 476;Benjamin v. Insurance Co., 80 App. Div. 260, 80 N. Y. Supp. ......
-
Cohen v. Home Ins. Co.
...... David Cohen against the Home Insurance Company, a corporation of New York, for recovery on two fire insurance policies. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Judgment affirmed, the court ...St. Rep, 521; Ins. Co. v. Dowdall, 159 Ill. 179, . 42 N. E. 606; Parsons v. Ins. Co., 132 Mo. 583, 31 S. W. 117 (affirmed in 132 Mo. 583, 34 S. W. 476); Godfrey v. Ins. ......
-
Western Nat. Ins. Co. v. Marsh
...... by the Court. . . When a. local agent of a fire insurance company, who has the power to. accept a risk and deliver the policy of insurance, at ...431; Williams v. Bankers' & Merchants' Town Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 73 Mo.App. 607;. Parsons v. Knoxville F. Ins. Co., 132 Mo. 583, 31. S.W. 117, 34 S.W. 476; Hamilton v. Insurance Co., 94. ......