American Credit-Indemnity Co. of New York v. National Clothing Co.

• Decision Date: 30 November 1909
• Citation: 122 S.W. 840
• Parties: AMERICAN CREDIT-INDEMNITY CO. OF NEW YORK v. NATIONAL CLOTHING CO.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

122 S.W. 840

AMERICAN CREDIT-INDEMNITY CO. OF NEW YORK v. NATIONAL CLOTHING CO.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

November 30, 1909

Appeal from Circuit Court, Graves County.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by the National Clothing Company against the American Credit-Indemnity Company of New York. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Moorman & Warren, for appellant.

Robbins & Thomas, for appellee.

BARKER J.

This action was instituted by the appellee to recover judgment upon a policy of indemnity issued by appellant to it. The defense was that the appellee had fraudulently misrepresented the amount of its net loss upon the business done by it prior to the time of the application for the policy in question. It was agreed upon the record that, if the plaintiff (appellee) was entitled to recover at all, it was entitled to the sum of $2,913.09. After the issues were made up, the case was submitted to a jury, and a verdict rendered in favor of the appellee for the sum of $2,913.09. The defendant filed a motion and grounds for a new trial, which were overruled, and it is here on appeal.

The first question presented is the scope of our power to review the rulings of the lower court under the motion and grounds for a new trial filed by appellant. These are as follows "The defendant, the American Credit-Indemnity Company of New York, comes and moves the court to set aside the verdict herein, and grant it a new trial of this action, and in support of its said motion it assigns the following reasons: (1) That the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and is against the weight of the evidence, and is contrary to law. (2) Error of law occurring at the trial and excepted to at the time by this defendant." The second assignment of error is so general in its character that we cannot consider under it any of the errors of law discussed in the brief. This court has often held that, in order that we may review the errors complained of, they must be set forth specifically in the grounds for a new trial. This rule is only complied with when the errors complained of are so specifically set forth that the attention of the trial court is definitely directed to them. Thompson v Commonwealth, 122 Ky. 501, 91 S.W. 701, 28 Ky. Law Rep 1137; McLain v. Dibble & Co., 76 Ky. 297; Slater v. Sherman, 68 Ky. 206; Commonwealth v Williams, 77 Ky. 297; Ohio Valley Ry. Co. v. Kuhn, 5 S. W. 419,...