Arkansas Insurance Company v. Luther
| Decision Date | 06 April 1908 |
| Citation | 109 S.W. 1022,85 Ark. 579 |
| Parties | ARKANSAS INSURANCE COMPANY v. LUTHER |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Baxter Circuit Court; John W. Meeks, Judge; reversed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
This is an action to recover upon a fire insurance policy, dated November 1, 1905, in the sum of $ 1,500, issued to the plaintiff on his stock of merchandise, store furniture and fixtures, valued at $ 2,500.
The defendant set up as a defense a violation of the iron-safe clause of the policy. It was stated that plaintiff had agreed to keep his books and inventory, as well as the last inventory taken before the issuance of the policy, in a fire-proof safe, and to deliver the same to the company for examination after a fire.
The testimony adduced by the plaintiff shows that a complete inventory of his stock was taken on August 1, 1905. That the policy was dated November 1, 1905, and that the fire occurred January 8, 1905. That the inventory was destroyed by the fire. That at the trial plaintiff produced a linen back book in which he had set down in lump the different classes of goods he had on hand on August 1, 1905, as follows:
Dry goods and notions
$ 525.00
Clothing and gent's furnishings
250.00
Hats and caps
50.00
Shoes
600.00
Hardware, harness, etc
200.00
Queensware and glassware
75.00
Drugs and patent medicines
125.00
Groceries and tobacco
300.00
Tinware and graniteware
20.00
That defendant asked him for his inventory, and that he replied that it had been destroyed by the fire.
The insurance policy was read to the jury. The defendant asked for a peremptory instruction, which was refused. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant has appealed.
Reversed and remanded.
C. S Collins, for appellant.
The court erred in refusing the second instruction requested by the defendant to the effect that, the itemized inventory riot having been produced to the adjuster or at the trial, but only lump sums of the different classes of goods, they should find for the defendant. 82 Ark. 476. Where there has been no compliance at all, there can be no substantial compliance. 61 S.W. 962; 77 S.W. 424.
L. E Hinton, for appellee.
The application shows under the heading of "books and invoices" that appellee notified appellant that he kept no cash nor credit sales book, and did not contract to keep either. He produces the substance of the things contracted for by him.
OPINIONHART, J., (after stating the facts.)
It is admitted that the original inventory was destroyed by the fire, but it is claimed that the totals of each class of goods taken from that inventory and placed in the linen back book, as set out in the statement of facts, is a sufficient compliance with the iron-safe clause of a standard policy. We do not think so. The principle announced in the case of Arkansas Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v Woolverton, 82 Ark. 476, 102 S.W. 226, is decisive of the question. In that case an inventory properly itemized, was preserved until after the fire, and was exhibited to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Queen of Arkansas Insurance Co. v. forlines
...Nor was there any waiver by the company. 114 Iowa 153; 62 Iowa 387; 72 Ark. 490. 3. The court erred in giving and refusing instructions. 85 Ark. 579. Joel Conway and William H. Arnold, for appellee. 1. Forfeitures are not favored in law. A denial of liability is a waiver of proof of loss. 5......
-
Beauchamp v. Retail Merchants Association
... ... B. BEAUCHAMP v. RETAIL MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, Mutual Fire Insurance" Company Supreme Court of North Dakota October 20, 1917 ... \xC2" ... 622, 52 L.R.A. 73, 78 Am. St. Rep. 216, ... 36 S.E. 821; Arkansas Ins. Co. v. Luther, 85 Ark ... 579, 109 S.W. 1022; Shawnee F. Ins. Co ... ...
-
Firemen's Insurance Company of Newark v. Rye
...car for commercial deliveries. This was a promissory warranty, binding on the assured. 57 Ark. 279; 58 Ark. 277; 69 Ark. 295; 66 Ark. 346; 85 Ark. 579; 91 Ark. 310; 83 Ark. Warner, Hardin & Warner, for appellee. 1. There is no merit in the contention that the verdict was excessive. There wa......
-
Queen of Arkansas Insurance Co. v. Dillard
...nor any attempted, compliance with the clause, appellee can not recover. 53 Ark. 353; 58 Ark. 565; 61 Ark. 207; 62 Ark. 43; 65 Ark. 240; 85 Ark. 579; 83 Ark. 126; 91 Ark. 310; S.W. 692; 36 S.E. 821; 63 Ark. 187; 52 Ark. 257. Webber & Webber, for appellee. Appellee kept no stock of stationer......