Chapman v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 28 May 1925
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 446
• Parties: CHAPMAN v. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

104 So. 517

213 Ala. 255

CHAPMAN v. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO.

6 Div. 446

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 28, 1925

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pickens County; John McKinley, Judge.

Action by Edna Chapman against the Hartford Fire Insurance Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

M.B. Curry, of Carrollton, for appellant.

Steiner, Crum & Weil, of Montgomery, and Patton & Patton, of Carrollton, for appellee.

THOMAS, J.

The pleadings in this suit on a policy of fire insurance were in short by consent, with leave to give in evidence matters which might be specially pleaded. The trial was upon an agreed statement of facts, by the court, without a jury, and judgment was for defendant.

The question of waiver of default in payment of premium note ( Insurance Co. v. Williams, 200 Ala. 681, 77 So. 159), or election (Galliher v. State Mutual Life Ins. Co., 150 Ala. 549, 43 So. 833, 124 Am.St.Rep. 83; Rose v. Citizens' Ins. Co., 210 Ala. 72, 97 So. 81), cannot be presented by incorporating in the record proper the agreed statement of facts. The ruling of the trial court and the rendition of judgment in favor of defendant can only be presented under the facts to this court by bill of exceptions. Code 1923, §§ 9498, 9502; White v. Roe, 151 Ala. 287, 44 So. 211; Western U.T. Co. v. Garthright, 151 Ala. 413, 44 So. 212; Williams v. Woodward Iron Co., 106 Ala. 254, 17 So. 517; Stephenson v. Allison, 165 Ala. 238, 51 So. 622, 138 Am.St.Rep. 26; Clark v. McCrary, 80 Ala. 110; Southern Express Co. v. Black, 54 Ala. 177. An agreement of counsel cannot operate as a bill of exceptions.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C.J., and SOMERVILLE and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.