Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Crampton
| Decision Date | 28 April 1880 |
| Citation | 5 N.W. 447,43 Mich. 421 |
| Parties | FARMERS' MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. CRAMPTON. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
A notice, with a plea of the general issue, is sufficient, if it fairly apprise the plaintiff of the defence that will be set up. Notice in this case held sufficient. Evidence offered in an action upon an insurance policy, to rebut statement that plaintiff had set fire to the premises; that property not insured, and that of near relatives, in excess of amount of insurance, was destroyed, held proper. Statements of plaintiff before the loss held inadmissible. Certain testimony tending to show that plaintiff had loose ideas about the destruction of insured property, and that he burned that in question, improperly stricken out.
Error to Eaton.
M.V. & R.A. Montgomery, for plaintiff in error.
I.D McCutcheon, for defendant in error.
The offer to show, on cross-examination of the plaintiff, a fraudulent overvaluation of the property insured at the time he made his application, should have been admitted. Notice was given with the plea of the general issue that the defendant would give in evidence that the plaintiff was guilty of fraud in procuring the insurance. The accuracy required in special pleading has never been applied to a notice of special defence, and to so hold would defeat the very object in view in thus simplifying the rules of pleading. It is sufficient if such a notice fairly apprises the plaintiff of the defence that will be set up, and we are of opinion that when so tested the notice in this case was sufficient. We need not, therefore, pass upon the question whether such a defence could be shown under the general issue.
The evidence offered to show that a certain amount of money belonging to the plaintiff, and personal property of near relatives of his, was in the house and destroyed by the fire was, we think, admissible. It was expressly stated that plaintiff did not seek to recover for the property or money so destroyed, or any part thereof, but that as the defence claimed that the plaintiff had set fire to the building, such evidence was admissible as bearing upon the improbability of such being the case. If the building and contents thereof far exceeded in value the amount of insurance, such would be strong testimony in favor of the loss being an honest one, as it is not to be supposed that a person will wilfully set fire to his own property and destroy...
To continue reading
Request your trial