Kverett-ridley-ragan Co v. Traders' Ins. Co. Of Chicago

• Decision Date: 11 November 1904
• Parties: KVERETT-RIDLEY-RAGAN CO. v. TRADERS' INS. CO. OF CHICAGO, ILL.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

48 S.E. 918

121 Ga. 228

KVERETT-RIDLEY-RAGAN CO.

v.TRADERS' INS. CO. OF CHICAGO, ILL.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 11, 1904.

INSURANCE—CONDITIONS OF POLICY—BOOKS-PLEADING—AMENDMENT.

1. A clause in a policy of fire insurance which requires that the insured shall "keep a set of books, which shall clearly and plainly present a complete record of business transacted, including all purchases, sales, and shipments, both for cash and credit, " is not complied with where it appears that the only record of cash sales kept is a cashbook, in which no detailed transactions are recorded, and only the aggregate amount of cash derived from all sources is set down at the end of each day; and in a suit upon such a policy, where it affirmatively appears from the evidence for the plaintiff that, even if the books were present in court, it would be impossible to tell therefrom the value of the stock of goods burned, the grant of a nonsuit is proper.

¶1. See Insurance, vol. 28, Cent. Dig. § 853.

2. It was not error to exclude the evidence offered, or to refuse to allow the amendment to the plaintiffs' petition.

(Syllabus by the Court)

Error from City Court of Macon; Robt Hodges, Judge.

Action by the Everett-Rldley-Ragan Company against the Traders' Insurance Company of Chicago, I11. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Erwin & Callaway and M. W. Harris, for plaintiff in error.

Davis & Turner, Hardeman & Jones, and Smith, Hammond & Smith, for defendant in error.

CANDLER, J. This was a suit upon a policy of fire insurance. The plaintiffs bring the case to this court on exceptions to the grant of a nonsuit, the exclusion of certain documentary evidence offered by them, and the refusal of an amendment to their petition. In our opinion, the proper decision of the case turns on the question whether or not there was a sufficient compliance on the part of the insured with that part of tho "iron-safe clause" of his policy which required him to "keep a set of books, which shall clearly and plainly present a complete record of business transacted, including all purchases, sales, and shipments, both for cash and credit, from date of inventory, as provided in first section of this clause, and during the continuance of this policy." The insured testified: "I do not know how, from my books, it could be ascertained the value of the stock of goods at the time it was burned, except from my independent recollection of the amount of goods on hand, and from the entries made on my ledger of purchases by me. * * * I had a cashbook, a daybook, and a ledger. These were all the books that I ever kept, or had at the time of the fire. I did not keep a book of invoices. * * * I kept no record of my cash sales except in making up my cash book at night" Immediately after the fire the insured made a written statement containing, among other things, the following: "I have only one book, known as ledger, dating 1899 and 1900. All other books were destroyed by fire. I kept no record of cash sales. Ledger shows all purchases made and also all credit sales." We are clear that this evidence establishes a noncompliance on the part of the insured with his contract of insurance, and that therefore, there can be no recovery on the policy. The evident intention of this clause of the contract is to enable the insurance company, by means of accurate records of the business of the insured, to ascertain with substantial certainty and definiteness the value of the stock of goods destroyed by fire; and here it is admitted that even if the books which were destroyed were produced in court, they would furnish no reliable information on that subject. A cash...