Home Protection of North Alabama v. Whidden

• Decision Date: 14 May 1894
• Citation: 15 So. 567,103 Ala. 203
• Parties: HOME PROTECTION OF NORTH ALABAMA v. WHIDDEN.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

15 So. 567

103 Ala. 203

HOME PROTECTION OF NORTH ALABAMA v. WHIDDEN.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 14, 1894

Appeal from circuit court, Henry county; J. M. Carmichael, Judge.

Action by J. J. Whidden against the Home Protection of North Alabama upon a policy of fire insurance, to recover for the loss, by fire, of merchandise, a storehouse, and fixtures, etc insured in said policy. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

The defendant pleaded the general issue, and, by special pleas that the assured was not entitled to recover in the present action, because he failed to observe the conditions and requirements of said policy. Upon the trial of the case, the defendant introduced in evidence the policy, and testified in his own behalf that the goods and other property covered by said policy were destroyed by fire a few nights after the issuance of said policy; that he gave the local agent of the defendant at Dothan, where the fire occurred, notice of such loss; and that he made his proof of loss, and forwarded it to the company. The plaintiff introduced, against the objection and exception of the defendant, several letters, which were written by the defendant to their adjuster, and also introduced to their adjuster, and also introduced in evidence copies of other letters which were written by the local agent of the defendant to the defendant itself, notifying it of the fire and other matters in reference to said policy. The defendant objected to the introduction of these copies of said letters, on the ground that they were irrelevant, and that the originals had not been accounted for or shown to have been misplaced. The court overruled this objection, and the defendant duly excepted. The testimony for the plaintiff tended to show that the property which was destroyed by fire exceeded the amount of the policy, and that he had complied with the requirements of said policy as to the proof of loss and other conditions. The defendant's evidence was in conflict with that of the plaintiff, and tended to show that at the time the fire occurred, the stock of goods in the storehouse was greatly less than the amount of insurance, and that the defendant did not give the proper notice of the fire or the proper proof of loss. Upon the introduction of all the evidence, and after the court's oral charge to the jury which is not set out in the bill of exceptions, the court, at the request of the plaintiff, gave the following written charge: "The written charges given at the instance of the defendant are not in conflict with the general charge of the court, and are not entitled to any more consideration by the jury than the general charge."

T. W Espy and R. W. Walker, for appellant.

A. E....