Farmers' Co-Operative Soc. of Geneva v. German Ins. Co.

Decision Date10 April 1896
Citation97 Iowa 749,66 N.W. 878
PartiesFARMERS' CO-OPERATIVE SOC. OF GENEVA v. GERMAN INS. CO.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from district court, Franklin county; B. P. Birdsall, Judge.

This is an action at law upon an alleged verbal contract of insurance against the loss by fire of a grain elevator and grain stored therein, and machinery connected therewith. There was a trial by jury, which resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals from a judgment on the verdict.Berryhill & Henry, for appellant.

Taylor & Evans, for appellee.

ROTHROCK, C. J.

1. The main question in the case is whether the evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury in finding that a verbal contract of insurance was made and concluded between the parties. The defendant requested the court to charge the jury as follows: “In an action upon a parol contract to issue a policy of insurance, no policy being in fact issued, there must be conclusive proof that all the essential elements of such a contract have been agreed upon. If the matter is left in doubt, upon the whole evidence, whether a binding contract was entered into, your verdict must be for the defendant. There is a dispute under the evidence as to whether there was any agreement to issue a policy, and as to the three following elements, which must be agreed upon to make a binding contract, viz. the time of payment of the premium, the amount of the insurance, and the distribution or apportionment of the total amount in each policy; and, unless you find from the evidence that there is conclusive proof that the agent of plaintiff and the agent of the defendant agreed upon the matters above mentioned, then the plaintiff cannot recover, and your verdict must be for the defendant.” The court refused to give the instruction as requested, and the jury were charged, in substance, that the contract, like any other oral undertaking, might be established by a preponderance of the evidence. It is urged that this is not the rule as applied to an oral contract of insurance. The question is not an open one in this state. The rule is so well established that all questions of fact in a law action are to be determined by a preponderance of the evidence, that it ought not to be a subject of debate. In McAnnulty v. Seick, 59 Iowa, 586, 13 N. W. 743, it is said: “It is, however, the established law of this state that questions of fact submitted to a jury in civil cases are to be determined by a preponderance of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT