Havens v. The Germania Fire Insurance Company
Decision Date | 25 June 1894 |
Citation | 27 S.W. 718,123 Mo. 403 |
Parties | Havens et al. v. The Germania Fire Insurance Company et al.; Sage et al., Appellants |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.
STATEMENT.
This appeal is a dispute between two parties of defendants in a suit upon certain fire insurance policies.
The original plaintiffs were Havens and Richardson, but for brevity we shall refer to them often as "Havens & Company;" and to the present appellants as "Sage & Company." We shall also occasionally treat the fire insurance companies as one group.
Havens & Company began the suit by a petition to recover upon the policies, whose general features will be mentioned later. Mr Sage and certain other parties claiming under him were made defendants, along with the insurance companies.
Mr Sage filed a separate answer, asserting an interest in the proceeds of the policies, based on facts hereafter stated. The other defendants, who claimed rights under Sage, set up their respective interests. They need not be particularly described.
The answers of the insurance companies were in the nature of cross bills of interpleader, declaring that Havens & Company and Sage & Company both laid claim to the proceeds of the funds sued for, and that the companies were ready to pay to the parties entitled thereto any sums justly due under the policies. These answers also set up facts, referred to further along, bearing on the extent of liability of defendants under the terms of the policies.
The cause was tried by the court, and the following judgment rendered:
From that judgment, Messrs. Sage and McAdams appealed, after moving unsuccessfully for new trial.
At the trial, the value of the items of property insured formed a subject of contention, on which the evidence was very conflicting; but with that exception the controlling facts were not seriously controverted and many of them are mutually admitted here.
The following is a brief outline of the facts:
In 1882 the plaintiffs, Havens and Richardson, bought the "Waldron Mill," in Platte county, Missouri, paying therefor the sum of $ 6,000; $ 3,000 cash and one hundred and sixty acres of land, valued at $ 3,000. They improved the mill by adding new machinery and a new siding, at some cost. The mill was a frame building; the main part, thirty-two by forty but, with a wing on either side sixteen by thirtytwo feet, and a coal and engine room in the rear thirty by forty feet. The main building was two and onehalf stories high and the wings, one story. The mill had a capacity of about one hundred barrels per day. They ran the mill from July, 1882, till June, 1884, when they negotiated a sale to Mr. Sanders for $ 6,000, but the sale was never consummated. November 8, 1884, they entered into a contract of sale with Mr. Sage, one of defendants in this action, by the terms of which he agreed to pay Havens & Richardson $ 4,250 for the mill, warehouse, machinery, etc., and to expend at least $ 2,000 in changing it from the burr process to the roller process; to complete the alterations within forty days, and to keep the property insured to the amount of $ 4,250 in companies acceptable to Havens & Richardson (loss payable to them), until payment of the purchase price.
Sage took possession on November 16, 1884; began work under his contract and effected the following insurance:
Germania Fire Insurance Company:
AEtna Fire Insurance Company:
City of London Fire Insurance Company:
Hartford Fire Insurance Company:
Making a total of $ 7,000 insurance. The Germania and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Daggs v. The Orient Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut
... ... property, which would otherwise be safe, by offering premiums ... for setting fire to private property covered by insurance, ... and in all its tendencies is immoral. (4) The ... its terms and does not impair its obligation. Ellerbe v ... Association, 114 Mo. 501; Havens v. Ins. Co., ... 123 Mo. 403; Barnard v. Ins. Co., 38 Mo.App. 106; ... Baker v. Ins. Co., 57 ... ...
-
Non-Royalty Shoe Company v. Phoenix Assurance Company, Limited, of London
... ... 7068, R. S. 1909, is unconstitutional as denying to the ... insurance companies penalized thereunder the equal protection ... of the law, and ... 30; Stevens v. Insurance ... Co., 120 Mo.App. 89; Fire Association v ... Allesina, 45 Ore. 154; Chippewa Lumber Co. v ... 7022 and 7023; Ritchey v. Home Ins. Co., 104 Mo.App ... 150; Havens v. Insurance Co., 123 Mo. 403, 26 L. R ... A. 107, 45 Am St. 570; ... ...
-
State ex rel. Long-Hall Laundry & Dry Cleaning Co. v. Bland
... ... at the Relation of Long-Hall Laundry & Dry Cleaning Company, and Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company, ... 401; Thomas v. Davis, 76 Mo. 72; Havens v ... Germania Fire Ins. Co., 123 Mo. 403, 27 S.W. 718; ... ...
-
State v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company
... ... Insurance Company v. Dobney, 189 U.S. 301, 47 L.Ed. 821, ... 23 S.Ct. 565, a te of Nebraska prescribing a penalty on ... fire insurance companies for negligently refusing to settle ... claims based ... ...