Guerin v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 July 1890
• Citation: 44 Minn. 20,46 N.W. 138
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: GUERIN ET AL. v ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. CO.

44 Minn. 20

46 N.W. 138

GUERIN ET AL.vST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 1, 1890.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

On the trial of this action before a jury, defendant objected to the introduction of certain testimony offered by plaintiffs, which was manifestly inadmissible under the pleadings. The objection was overruled, and the testimony, without which the plaintiffs could not recover, received, defendant duly excepting. After a verdict in plaintiffs' favor, the court permitted an amendment to the complaint under which this testimony would have been admissible, had the amendatory allegation appeared originally. Held, that this was a clear abuse of the discretion of the court in allowing amendments to pleadings.

Appeal from municipal court, city of St. Paul; CORY, Judge.

Lusk & Bunn, for appellant.

Willrich & Lambert, for respondents.

COLLINS, J.

Action upon an insurance policy to recover the value of certain merchandise destroyed by fire. The complaint set forth the policy in hæc verba, and, among other provisions contained in it, was one declaring that, should other insurance be placed on the property without the consent of defendant company written on the policy itself, the policy should be void. It was further alleged in the complaint that other insurance was effected, but there was no averment that defendant consented thereto, or had notice or knowledge of the same. It therefore failed to state a cause of action. The answer alleged the existence of other insurance on the property previously obtained by plaintiffs, of which defendant had no notice until after the fire, and therefore that its policy was void. No reply was interposed to this answer, so that upon this issue a bare question of law only was presented by the pleadings. A jury trial was had, at which the plaintiffs attempted to prove that defendant's soliciting agent was informed and had knowledge of the previous policy when the one in suit was applied for, and when it was delivered to plaintiffs. To the introduction of this testimony the defendant seasonably objected, on the ground of its incompetency, irrelevancy, and inadmissibility, under the pleadings. The objection was overruled, the testimony was received, defendant duly excepting, and thereafter, without avail, moving to strike it out. The court submitted the case to the jury under instructions which required the jury to find that defendant had knowledge, through its agent, of the prior...