Cammack v. Southwestern Fire Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 December 1908
• Citation: 115 S.W. 142
• Parties: CAMMACK et al. v. SOUTHWESTERN FIRE INS. CO. et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

115 S.W. 142

CAMMACK et al. v. SOUTHWESTERN FIRE INS. CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

December 14, 1908.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ashley County; H. W. Wells, Judge.

Action by A. W. Cammack and others against the Southwestern Fire Insurance Company and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Jas. C. Norman, for appellants. Greaves & Martin, for appellees.

HART, J.

This suit was brought to recover the sum of $500 upon a fire insurance policy issued by the Southwestern Fire Insurance Company to A. W. Cammack, and the case is here on appeal from a judgment for $50 in favor of appellants.

The application for the policy describes the building as a one-story frame building, with shingle roof, situated on lot No. 8 (rear), block No. 5, in the town of Portland, Ark., and used as a butcher shop, barber shop, and icehouse. The policy describes it as a one-story frame building, with shingle roof, occupied as a butcher shop, barber shop, and icehouse, situated on lot 8, block 5, town of Portland, in Ashley county, Ark. Cammack testified that there were four buildings on this lot: One single-story frame building occupied as a general store; a shed room adjoining it on one side occupied as a barber shop; and two box houses on the rear of the lot, occupied as a barber shop, butcher shop, and icehouse. The general store and the barber shop adjoining were destroyed by fire, and the buildings on the rear part of the lot were slightly damaged by the same fire.

The point at issue between Cammack and the insurance company was that the former claimed that the building adjoining the general store on the side was the one covered by the policy, and the latter contended that the policy was issued on the building on the rear of the lot. Counsel for appellants contends that there was prejudicial error in the action of the court in giving instructions covering this point and in refusing those asked by him. No exceptions were saved to the action of the court in giving or in refusing instructions. Hence, by a familiar rule of practice, the errors of the court in that regard, if any occurred, were waived. Mitchell v. Smith & Poe et al., 87 Ark. 486, 111 S. W. 806; Plumlee v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co., 85 Ark. 488, 109 S. W. 515; Missouri & N. A. R. R. Co. v. Bratton, 85 Ark. 326, 108 S. W. 518.

It was not sufficient to make the errors assigned grounds of a motion for a new trial, but the exceptions must have been saved during the trial and...