Farmers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co. of St. Joseph County v. Fogelman
| Citation | 35 Mich. 481 |
| Parties | The Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance Company of St. Joseph County v. Frederick Fogelman |
| Decision Date | 19 January 1877 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Submitted on Briefs January 11, 1877
Error to St. Joseph Circuit.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
H. H Riley, for plaintiff in error.
John B Shipman, for defendant in error.
Defendant in error took a policy from the company August 11th, 1869, on a barn and other property situated on a farm in St. Joseph county, and on the 24th of July, 1874, the barn was destroyed by fire. An action was brought for the loss and defendant in error recovered. The company asks for a reversal. They object, that in the application defendant in error represented that he was owner of the farm and barn, but in fact was not.
There is no dispute concerning the form of his representation. He was asked: "Are you the owner of the buildings to be insured, and of the farm upon which they are situated?" To which he replied, "Yes." The question arises upon the correctness of his answer. It was ruled below, and his counsel here contends, that the facts showed that he was the equitable owner, and if so, that was sufficient. Counsel for the company claims that the facts were not sufficient to make out an equitable title.
It appears that when the application was made, and until May 22d, 1871, the legal title stood in the name of Mrs. Fogelman, wife of defendant in error, and that she deeded to him at this last named date; that some time prior to her marriage with him, which occurred March 26, 1868, her father bought this farm, paying two thousand dollars in cash, and caused it to be conveyed to her as her property upon her giving back to him a mortgage upon it to secure the balance of the purchase price, being four thousand dollars; that the place was worth some six thousand dollars; that shortly before her marriage a verbal agreement was entered into between herself, her intended husband, Mr. Fogelman, and her father, that if Mr. Fogelman would move upon the place, cultivate and improve it, care for and support the family, and pay off the incumbrances, Mrs. Fogelman, when required by her husband, the defendant in error, would convey to him the legal title; that in pursuance of this arrangement, defendant in error in good faith actually moved upon the premises, and carried out and performed the terms thus verbally expressed; that he lived on the premises with his family, worked the lands, paid the taxes, kept up the fences, made improvements and conducted the cultivation as owner; that he used the proceeds as his own, applying what was necessary for the support of his family; that he took with him a span of horses, four head of cattle, and other personal property, and all of which was now on the farm; that prior to the application for insurance he had actually paid enough on the four thousand dollar mortgage to reduce it to two thousand two hundred dollars; that the money so paid was raised in part and mostly from crops taken off of the farm, but that the rest was obtained from crops raised by him on other lands; that no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Home Insurance Company v. North Little Rock Ice & Electric Company
...& Gill 295; 5 Hill, 192; 6 Cranch, 281; 6 Taunt. 338; 12 La. 134; 18 L. R. A. 139; 46 Mich. 56; 66 Mich. 98; 52 Mich. 131; 53 Mich. 306; 35 Mich. 481; 89 F. 936; 62 857. OPINION MORRIS M. COHN, Special Judge. The Home Fire Insurance Company, of Fordyce, Ark., was sued in the court below by ......
-
Loventhal v. Home Ins. Co.
... ... from circuit court, Jefferson county; James J. Banks, Judge ... Action ... a fire policy. There was judgment for defendant, and ... authorities. In Insurance Co. v. Fogelman, 35 Mich ... 481, where the applicant for ... ...
-
Hawkins v. South-Western Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
...the bare occupancy of the property by the husband as a dwelling it was held that he had an insurable interest. In Farmers' Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Fogelman, 35 Mich. 481, it was held that where the insured had an oral agreement with his wife for an interest in the property such oral agreeme......
-
Capital Fire Insurance Company v. Johnson
...the owner of the property, or has title to meet the requirements of an insurance policy having conditions such as the policy sued on here. 35 Mich. 481; 31 S.W. 117 Pa. 460; 35 S.W. 829. 2. A vendor's lien is not such an incumbrance as will defeat a policy of insurance with conditions such ......