Hydrick v. Rhode Island Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 09 May 1924
• Docket Number: 11501.
• Citation: 127 S.E. 367,131 S.C. 8
• Parties: HYDRICK v. RHODE ISLAND INS. CO. HYDRICK v. CONCORDIA FIRE INS. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

127 S.E. 367

131 S.C. 8

HYDRICK v. RHODE ISLAND INS. CO.

HYDRICK v. CONCORDIA FIRE INS. CO.

No. 11501.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

May 9, 1924

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Orangeburg County; C. C Featherstone, Judge.

Actions by John Henry Hydrick against the Rhode Island Insurance Company and against the Concordia Fire Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with instructions.

Fowles & Bailey and Nettles & Tobias, all of Columbia, for appellants.

Ed. C Mann and A. J. Hydrick, both of Orangeburg, for respondent.

WATTS J.

"The plaintiff commenced four separate actions in the Orangeburg court of common pleas against the National Fire Insurance Company for $2,000, against the Milwaukee Mechanics' Fire Insurance Company for $3,000, and against each of the appellants the Rhode Island Insurance Company and the Concordia Fire Insurance Company for $1,500, being for $8,000 in all, and each of the four cases was commenced by the service of summons on April 24, 1922. The case against the Milwaukee Mechanics' Insurance Company resulted in a mistrial, after which, on motion of the plaintiff, with the consent of the Milwaukee Mechanics' Insurance Company and over the objection of the National Fire Insurance Company and the two appellants, the presiding judge ordered the cases tried together, and they were so tried before Hon. C. C. Featherstone and a jury on April 18, 1923. The two appellants made motions for a nonsuit and for a directed verdict in their cases, and these were overruled, and the verdict was against each for $1,500 and interest, the face of their policies."

The verdict was in favor of the Milwaukee Mechanics' Company and against the National Concordia and Rhode Island Companies. The appeal is by the Rhode Island Insurance Company and Concordia Fire Insurance Company

The exceptions are that his honor should have granted a nonsuit as asked for by the defendants, and later should have directed a verdict in favor of the defendants as asked for.

These exceptions raise the single question that his honor should have taken the cases from the jury and should have held that the testimony of the plaintiff failed to establish a valid contract of insurance against either appellant, but, in fact, it established there was no such contract.

The testimony of the plaintiff shows that he did not know of the existence of the policies in appellant companies until after the fire; that he did not ask for any additional insurance, but simply for a permit to remove his property.

The agent of the company found that the company did not insure property in the country, and in order to protect plaintiff issued policies in the appellant companies for $1,500 to cover the amount in Milwaukee Mechanics' Fire Insurance Company, intending them to be a substitution of that policy. After the fire, he delivered these policies to plaintiff, and demanded the policy in Milwaukee...