Home Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Pittman

Decision Date15 May 1916
Docket Number17856
Citation71 So. 739,111 Miss. 420
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesHOME MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. PITTMAN

APPEAL from the circuit court of Yalobusha county, HON. J. B ECKLES, Judge.

Suit by N. A. Pittman against the Home Mutual Fire Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Case reversed, and suit dismissed.

McLaurin & Aemistead, and T. G. Birchett, for appellant.

Greekmore & Stone, for appellee.

OPINION

POTTER, J.

This was a suit begun by N. A. Pittman, appellee, in this court plaintiff in the court below, against the Home Mutual Fire Insurance Company, appellant here and defendant in the court below.

The defendant was a mutual fire insurance company, and, upon appellee's request, insured, in one policy, two dwelling houses belonging to the appellee dwelling house No. 1 was insured for four hundred dollars and dwelling house No. 2 for six hundred dollars. Dwelling house No. 2 was destroyed by fire on the 28th day of June, 1912 and the appellant filed his suit in the circuit court to recover on the policy. It developed, after the fire, that the house destroyed was situated on land not owned by appellee but by his wife. The said house, the uncontradicted facts show, was built thereon permissively and without understanding or agreement between the appellee and his wife, and was occupied by their son as a residence. The defendant denied liability and tendered the premium, which tender was refused.

The policy in question contains the following clause:

"If there is, or shall be, other prior, concurrent, or subsequent insurance, whether valid or not, on said property, or any part thereof, without the company's written consent, or if said building, or either of them, now is or shall become vacant or unoccupied, or if the hazard become increased in any way, whether under the control and knowledge of the member, or not, or if the property or any part thereof shall be sold or conveyed, or if the property insured now is, or shall become, incumbered by mortgage or otherwise, or any change takes place in the title, occupation or possession thereof whatsoever, or if foreclosure proceedings shall be commenced, or if the interests of the member in said property, or any part thereof, now is, or shall become, any other or less than a perfect legal and equitable title and ownership, free from all liens whatsoever, except as stated in writing hereon, or if the buildings or either of them stand on leased ground (or land of which the assured has not a perfect title), or if this contract shall be assigned without the company's written consent hereon, then, and in any such case, this contract shall be absolutely null and void."

The defendant filed the plea of general issue, and gave notice thereunder setting out the above clause of the policy sued on, and offered to prove that the provisions of the policy sued on were violated by the plaintiff in that the interest of he plaintiff was not, at the time of the issuance of the policy, a perfect, legal, and equitable title of ownership of the property sued for, free from all liens whatsoever, and that the building, the object of the suit, stood on leased land, or land of which the assured had not a perfect title on account of which the policy sued became absolutely null and void. The plaintiff relied on another clause in the policy as contradictory of the clause above quoted and relied upon by the defendant. That clause is as follows:

"In case the interest of the member in said property is not the sole, absolute and unconditional unincumbered ownership thereof, both in law and in equity, this company shall not be liable to the member by virtue of this contract for any sum exceeding the actual cash value of the interest of the member at the time of the loss after deducting from the actual cash value of said property the amount and value of all outstanding rights, interests and incumbrances thereon, but in case this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
51 cases
  • Citizens Nat. Bank of Meridian v. Golden
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 23, 1936
    ... ... v. Baton, 131 So. 346, 159 Miss. 236; Germania Life Ins ... Co. v. Bouldin, 100 Miss. 660, 56 So. 609; Home ... Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Patterson, 71 So. 739, 111 Miss ... ...
  • Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Roberts
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • November 25, 1935
    ... ... of the parties ... Southern ... Home Ins. Co. v. Wall, [174 Miss. 280] 156 Miss ... 865, 127 So. 298; ... Co. v. Perryman, 140 So. 73, 162 Miss. 864; Home ... Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Pittman, 71 So. 739, 111 Miss ... 420; Germania Life Ins ... Peoria Life Ins. Co., 284 U.S. 487, 76 L.Ed. 147; ... Owen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 64 F.2d 561; Berry v ... Lamar Life Ins. Co., 142 So ... ...
  • Mississippi Power Co. v. May
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 3, 1935
    ... ... Russell, 89 Miss. 437, 42 So. 233; ... Germania Life Ins. Co. v. Bouldin, 100 Miss. 660, 56 ... So. 609; Home l Fire Ins Co. v. Patterson, 71 ... So. 739, 111 Miss. 420; ... ...
  • Mississippi Power Co. v. Bennett
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 29, 1935
    ... ... Section ... 567, Code of 1930; Queen Ins. Co. v. Betbeze, 53 So ... Hathorn ... & ... Co. v. Bouldin, 100 ... Miss. 660, 56 So. 609; Home Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v ... Pittman, 111 Miss. 420, 71 So ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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