German Fire Ins. Co. v. Seibert

Citation24 Ind.App. 279, 56 N.E. 686
Case DateMarch 08, 1900
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

24 Ind.App. 279
56 N.E. 686

GERMAN FIRE INS. CO.
v.
SEIBERT.

Appellate Court of Indiana.

March 8, 1900.


Appeal from superior court, Lake county; Harry B. Tuthill, Judge.

Action by Richard Seibert against the German Fire Insurance Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed.

[56 N.E. 687]


Agnew & Kelly and Borders & Becker, for appellant.
Stinson Bros. & Reading, for appellee.

COMSTOCK, J.

Appellee (plaintiff below) brought this action to recover a balance which he alleged to be due him on a policy of insurance against fire issued by appellant upon his household goods and wearing apparel. The policy was made a part of the complaint. Appellant answered in three paragraphs: The first, a general denial; the second, payment; the third, a settlement and payment of the amount found due. The cause was submitted to the court for trial, which resulted in a judgment in favor of appellee for $387. Upon this appeal two questions are discussed: (1) The sufficiency of the complaint; (2) the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial.

The complaint, in substance, alleges that the defendant is indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $387 on family wearing apparel, as covered by a certain fire insurance policy (No. 1,010), which is made an exhibit to the complaint, which policy was executed by defendant, through its agents, for a consideration of $4.25, and by which policy defendant undertook to insure the plaintiff's furniture, wearing apparel, etc., against loss by fire, in the sum of $850; that said furniture, etc., was destroyed by fire April 8, 1898, while the policy was in force; that plaintiff has performed his part of the contract; that plaintiff was the owner of the furniture, etc., at the time the policy was issued, and at the time of the fire; that there has been an adjustment of the loss with reference to the furniture destroyed, but no adjustment with reference to the wearing apparel covered by the policy. The complaint also avers that an itemized statement of the furniture destroyed is filed with the complaint as Exhibit B, and that an itemized statement of the value of the wearing apparel is filed with the complaint as Exhibit C.

The objections urged to the complaint are (1) that it contains no averments as to the value of the property adjusted; (2) that it does not show that the wearing apparel and trinkets were covered by the policy.

The complaint alleges that the appellant is indebted to appellee in the sum of $387 because of its failure to reimburse him for the loss of his property by fire. The law presumes that property destroyed by fire is of some value. Insurance Co. v. Black, 80 Ind. 513. A motion to make the complaint more specific would, no doubt, have been sustained by the court. This objection to the complaint is not well taken.

Was the wearing apparel covered by the policy? The following is the printed slip attached to the policy, designating...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • City of Rawlins v. Jungquist
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 21, 1908
    ...not, therefore, any allowance and acceptance of payment of a part in settlement or satisfaction of the entire claim. (Ins. Co. v. Siebert, 56 N.E. 686; Lambkin v. R. R. Co., 8 So., 530.) A transaction to amount to a compromise must be agreed on and consented to. It must be shown that there ......
  • Ohio Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Vogel, No. 5,100.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 23, 1905
    ...will constitute a waiver of proof of loss. Home Ins. Co. v. Sylvester, 25 Ind. App. 207, 57 N. E. 991;German Fire Ins. Co. v. Seibert, 24 Ind. App. 279, 56 N. E. 686;Ft. Wayne Ins. Co. v. Irwin, 23 Ind. App. 53, 54 N. E. 817;Indiana Ins. Co. v. Pringle, 21 Ind. App. 559, 52 N. E. 821:Home I......
  • Ohio Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Vogel, No. 20,777.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 23, 1906
    ...Ind. 107, 120, 32 N. E. 319, 20 L. R. A. 400;Home Ins. Co. v. Sylvester, 25 Ind. App. 207, 57 N. E. 991;German Fire Ins. Co. v. Seibert, 24 Ind. App. 279, 56 N. E. 686;Ft. Wayne Ins. Co. v. Irwin, 23 Ind. App. 53, 54 N. E. 817;Indiana Ins. Co. v. Pringle, 21 Ind. App. 559, 52 N. E. 821;Home......
  • City of Rawlins v. Jungquist
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 23, 1908
    ...the contrary, and even that certain items were not included in a settlement. (Dudley v. Iron Co., 13 O. St.; Ins. Co. v. Siebert (Ind.), 56 N.E. 686.) The retention of the amount paid proves nothing, unless it was paid and accepted in full settlement. (7 Cur. L., 13, 16; Caine v. Life Asso'......
4 cases
  • City of Rawlins v. Jungquist
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 21, 1908
    ...not, therefore, any allowance and acceptance of payment of a part in settlement or satisfaction of the entire claim. (Ins. Co. v. Siebert, 56 N.E. 686; Lambkin v. R. R. Co., 8 So., 530.) A transaction to amount to a compromise must be agreed on and consented to. It must be shown that there ......
  • Ohio Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Vogel, No. 5,100.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 23, 1905
    ...will constitute a waiver of proof of loss. Home Ins. Co. v. Sylvester, 25 Ind. App. 207, 57 N. E. 991;German Fire Ins. Co. v. Seibert, 24 Ind. App. 279, 56 N. E. 686;Ft. Wayne Ins. Co. v. Irwin, 23 Ind. App. 53, 54 N. E. 817;Indiana Ins. Co. v. Pringle, 21 Ind. App. 559, 52 N. E. 821:Home I......
  • Ohio Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Vogel, No. 20,777.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 23, 1906
    ...Ind. 107, 120, 32 N. E. 319, 20 L. R. A. 400;Home Ins. Co. v. Sylvester, 25 Ind. App. 207, 57 N. E. 991;German Fire Ins. Co. v. Seibert, 24 Ind. App. 279, 56 N. E. 686;Ft. Wayne Ins. Co. v. Irwin, 23 Ind. App. 53, 54 N. E. 817;Indiana Ins. Co. v. Pringle, 21 Ind. App. 559, 52 N. E. 821;Home......
  • City of Rawlins v. Jungquist
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 23, 1908
    ...the contrary, and even that certain items were not included in a settlement. (Dudley v. Iron Co., 13 O. St.; Ins. Co. v. Siebert (Ind.), 56 N.E. 686.) The retention of the amount paid proves nothing, unless it was paid and accepted in full settlement. (7 Cur. L., 13, 16; Caine v. Life Asso'......

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