Burlington Ins. Co. v. Kennerly
Decision Date | 18 May 1895 |
Parties | BURLINGTON INS. CO. v. KENNERLY. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Garland county; Alexander M. Duffie, Judge.
Action by M. M. Kennerly against the Burlington Insurance Company on a policy of fire insurance. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
Clayton & Brozzolara, for appellant. C V. Teague, for appellee.
This is a suit on a policy of fire insurance, instituted and determined in the Garland circuit court, resulting in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, M. M. Kennerly, the appellee here, in the sum of $150, against the defendant and appellant company, from which it has appealed to this court. There having been no notice and proof of the loss, as provided in the policy, the only question for our consideration is whether or not the same has been waived by the insurance company. It appears from the testimony that previously to the 18th day of July, 1892, John J. Sumpter & Son were the local agents of the appellant company at the city of Hot Springs, Ark., and had authority as such "to sign and issue policies, and issued the one sued on, and frequently acted for them in adjusting losses, and have all the time, and do now [time of taking testimony], correspond in regard to losses." Again, he says: Again, he says: Witness, being shown a paper, was asked if it was the revocation, and said it may be, and the same is as follows: In his testimony the plaintiff testified on this point as follows, to wit: After the receipt of the letter of revocation of his authority as agent, which he thinks was about the 21st of July, 1892, John J. Sumpter, in his testimony, further states that: "I never got parol or written authority to act from the company; that is, I never got authority to issue and sign policies." In the policy exhibited with the complaint and introduced in evidence it is stipulated, among other things: "In case of loss, the assured shall give immediate notice thereof to the president or secretary at Burlington, Iowa, in writing, and shall, within thirty days next after said loss, deliver to the president or secretary of the company at Burlington, Iowa, a particular account of said loss, under oath, stating the time, origin, and circumstances of the fire; the occupancy of the whole building insured, and the several parts thereof, or containing the property insured at the time of the fire; and the amount of the loss and damages," and sundry other matters pertaining to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burlington Insurance Co. v. Kennerly
... ... Ins. p. 179; 1 May on Ins ... sec. 173. Parol testimony is not admissible to control or ... vary their terms. 1 May on Ins. sec. 171-2; 14 S.E. 532; 5 ... Law Rep. Ann. 799, 805; 1 Wood, Fire Ins. p. 11; 11 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 286, note. By accepting the policy, the ... assured agreed to all ... ...
-
Keil Motor Co. v. Royal Insurance Co., Ltd., of Liverpool, England
... ... alleged and proved. Reed v. Continental Ins. Co., 22 ... Del. 204, 6 Penne. 204, 65 A. 569; Emory v. Ins ... Co., 23 Del. 101, 7 Penn ... defendant company ( Bush v. Westchester Fire Insurance ... Co., 63 N.Y. 531; Burlington Ins. Co. v ... Kennerly, 60 Ark. 532, 31 S.W. 155; Bowlin v. Hekla ... Fire Ins. Co., 36 ... ...
-
National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Crabtree
...Fire Ins. Co. v. Mitchell, 122 Ark. 357, 183 S. W. 770; Insurance Co. v. Payton, supra. The earlier case of Burlington Ins. Co. v. Kennerly, 60 Ark. 532, 31 S. W. 155, is in conflict with the later decisions cited above in that it holds that authority to sign and issue policies does not emb......