Hughes v. Ins. Co. of N. Am.
| Citation | 59 N.W. 112,40 Neb. 626 |
| Parties | HUGHES v. INSURANCE CO. OF NORTH AMERICA. |
| Decision Date | 15 May 1894 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Nebraska |
HUGHES
v.
INSURANCE CO. OF NORTH AMERICA.
Supreme Court of Nebraska.
May 15, 1894.
1. A fire insurance policy contained this clause: “That the having of other insurance thereon [the insured property], or any part thereof, valid or invalid, prior or subsequent, not made known to this company, and consented to hereon, will render this policy void.” Held: (1) That the violation of this provision by the assured, in procuring additional insurance on the property without knowledge or consent of the first insurer, did not render the policy issued by it void, but voidable, at the election of said first insurer; (2) that the provision was a reasonable one, not unconscionable, illegal, nor contrary to public policy; (3) that it was inserted in the insurance contract for the benefit of, and might be waived by, the insurer.
[59 N.W. 113]
2. The acceptance by a principal of the fruits of an unauthorized contract made by his agent is a ratification of such agent's conduct; and said ratification relates back to the date of the performance of the act ratified, and the principal is bound by the effects thereof, and the results flowing therefrom,--as much so as if he had himself performed the act.
3. Where it is stipulated in a contract of insurance that the insurer shall not be liable thereon, or that said insurance contract shall be void, if, without the insurer's knowledge or consent the insured shall procure additional insurance on the insured property, and the insured violates said insurance contract by so procuring additional insurance, then the first insurance contract is voidable, at the election of the insurer; and such violation is a defense against the insured, in a suit upon said first policy, unless it be shown that said violation of the first insurance contract was brought about through fraud or mistake, or has been waived by said first insurer.
4. Insurance Co. v. Heiduk, 46 N. W. 481, 30 Neb. 288, followed and reaffirmed.
Error to district court, Holt county; Bartow, Judge.
Action by Patrick S. Hughes against the Insurance Company of North America. Verdict for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
H. M. Uttley, for plaintiff in error.
J. Fawcett, F. M. Sturdevant, and A. S. Churchill, for defendant in error.
RAGAN, C.
Patrick S. Hughes sued the Insurance Company of North America in the district court on a policy of fire insurance, to recover the value of a building destroyed by fire, owned by said Hughes, and insured by said insurance company. At the close of the testimony the district court directed a verdict for the defendant, upon which judgment was rendered, and Hughes brings the case here on error.
The policy sued upon contained this provision: “That the having of other insurance thereon [the property], or any part thereof, valid or invalid, prior or subsequent, not made known to this company, and consented to...
To continue reading
Request your trial