Fred Miller Brewing Co. v. Capital Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 May 1895
• Citation: 63 N.W. 568
• Parties: FRED MILLER BREWING CO. v. CAPITAL INS. CO.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

63 N.W. 568

FRED MILLER BREWING CO.

v.CAPITAL INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 27, 1895.

Appeal from district court, Polk county; Stephen F. Balliett, Judge.

Action at law upon a judgment against the defendant rendered by a court of the state of Wisconsin. A jury was impaneled, but before the submission of the cause the jury was discharged by agreement of the parties, and the cause was submitted to the court. It found for the defendant, and rendered judgment in its favor for costs. The plaintiff appeals. Reversed.Dudly & Coffin, for appellant.

Read & Read, for appellee.

ROBINSON, J.

The controlling questions in this case are the same as those involved in the case of Fred Miller Brewing Co. v. Council Bluffs Ins. Co. (decided at the present term of this court) 63 N. W. 565. The defendant is a corporation of this state engaged in doing a fire insurance business. The judgment upon which this action was founded was rendered for loss by fire of property in the state of Wisconsin, which was covered by a policy of insurance issued by the defendant. The property owner was J. M. Maier; the policy was obtained at the instance of E. H. Winchester, an agent who resided in Clarke county, in the state of Wisconsin. He obtained it through W. W. Caldwell, an insurance broker of Chicago, and he procured it of E. T. Marshall & Co., who were the general agents of the defendant in Chicago, with power to issue policies on risks in the state of Wisconsin. After the destruction of the property, an action on the policy was commenced against the defendant in the circuit court of Milwaukee county, in the state of Wisconsin, and the summons was served upon Winchester. A judgment was rendered by default against the defendant, and the plaintiff seeks to recover the amount of that judgment. The facts in this case are so nearly identical with those which controlled in the case referred to that the decision in that case is controlling in this. The district court did not make any finding of facts, nor announce any conclusion of law, in this case, but the jurisdiction of the Wisconsin court to render the judgment in suit was the question of chief importance, to which all others were subordinate, and in regard to it there was no conflict in the evidence. For the reasons stated in the case against the Council Bluffs Insurance Company the judgment of the district court is reversed.