Bailey v. Security Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 15 March 1921 |
Citation | 100 Or. 163,196 P. 252 |
Parties | BAILEY v. SECURITY INS. CO. [a1] |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; F. M. Calkins, Judge.
Action by I. W. Bailey against the Security Insurance Company. From a judgment on a directed verdict against defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff, I. W. Bailey, from a judgment upon a directed verdict against the Security Insurance Company, a corporation, defendant and respondent. Plaintiff sued the defendant for $1,050 on a standard fire insurance policy. The complaint contained the usual averments in actions of this nature, including an allegation as to the ownership of the property. The defendant, by way of an affirmative defense, set up the provisions of the policy wherein it is made void in the event the assured is not the sole and unconditional owner of the insured property or is not the owner in fee simple of the ground on which the insured building is situate, and averred that the plaintiff was not such owner. The plaintiff further alleged that defendant insurance company, through its agent, "in an attempt to avoid the payment of said loss * * * falsely accused plaintiff of * * * burning said property, and that for the reason that defendant had thus assumed to fix and determine * * * the time and origin of said fire, the plaintiff did not make out or present to said defendant such sworn statement, as provided by the policy, that defendant by the act of its agent waived the requirement as embodied in said policy, and that plaintiff was legally excused from that provision of said insurance policy." The defendant admitted that the plaintiff did not at any time present to defendant the sworn statement commonly called proof of loss required by the statutory policy.
Testimony was offered at the trial proving the destruction of the property, together with evidence of the ownership of the land upon which the building was situate, also as to plaintiff's examination by the legally constituted authorities, at which examination it appears that defendant's agent was present. At the conclusion of the testimony upon the part of plaintiff and defendant, the record shows the following colloquy:
The plaintiff assigns error as follows:
W. E. Phipps, of Medford, for appellant.
J. C. Veazie, of Portland (Veazie & Veazie, of Portland, and F. P. Farrell, of Medford, on the brief), for respondent.
BROWN, J. (after stating the facts as above).
The plaintiff assigns a number of errors relating to the failure of the court to give to the jury certain instructions, but the plaintiff has not presented a record whereby this court is authorized by law to review the proceedings complained of. We have searched the record brought from the lower court for the purpose of ascertaining and reviewing the alleged errors of the trial court. No exceptions are disclosed. Our Code thus defines the term "exception":
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Frangos v. Edmunds
...Kelley v. Stout Lumber Co., 123 Or. 647, 263 P. 881; McIntosh Livestock Co. v. Buffington, 108 Or. 358, 217 P. 635; Bailey v. Security Ins. Co., 100 Or. 163, 196 P. 252; Marks v. First National Bank, 84 Or. 601, 165 P. Plaintiff contends, however, that the rule as stated in the cited cases ......
- Lappy's Estate, In re
-
John Deere Plow Co. of Moline v. Silver Mfg. Co.
... ... exception was taken thereto ( Bailey v. Security ... Insurance Co., 100 Or. 163, 196 P. 252), but we have ... preferred to ... ...
-
Hesse v. Mittleman
... ... error, but error legally excepted to, that constitutes ground ... for reversal. Bailey v. Security Ins. Co., 100 Or ... 163, 196 P. 252 ... By the ... last ... ...