Manchester Fire Assurance Co. v. Glenn
Decision Date | 28 May 1895 |
Docket Number | 1,490 |
Citation | 40 N.E. 926,13 Ind.App. 365 |
Parties | MANCHESTER FIRE ASSURANCE CO. v. GLENN |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
S. N Chambers, S. O. Pickens, and C. W. Moores, for appellant.
R. J Tracewell and Elliott & Hostetter, for appellees.
This action was brought by the appellee against the appellant on a policy of fire insurance. The first and second assignments of error call in question the sufficiency of each paragraph of amended complaint. It appears from the averments of the first paragraph that Koerner & Zimmer, a co-partnership, were the owners of a building situate on a lot in the town of Bird's Eye; that Frank Zimmer, one of the partners, was the sole owner of a stock of merchandise and the office furniture and fixtures contained in said building; that the appellant executed a policy of insurance in which it was stipulated that in consideration of the sum of $ 35.00 it insured Koerner & Zimmer and Frank Zimmer against loss by fire for the period of one year in the sum of $ 1,000.00, divided as follows: $ 300.00 on the building; $ 33.33 on office furniture and fixtures, and $ 666.67 on stock of merchandise. It further appears from the allegations that while the policy was in full force, Frank Zimmer, being the sole owner of the goods and of the office furniture and fixtures, sold and transferred the same to the appellee, James E. Glenn; that subsequently to the sale Frank Zimmer, by his written indorsement on said policy, assigned to the appellee all his interest in the policy, so far as it covered and embraced his interest in the stock of merchandise and the furniture and fixtures; that at the time of issuing the policy and making the assignment, the company, through its agent, had full knowledge that Koerner & Zimmer were the owners of the building and that Frank Zimmer was the sole owner of the stock of goods, and of the furniture and fixtures; that the company consented to the assignment of said policy by Frank Zimmer to the appellee, and that the written assignment was prepared by its agent; that it was the intention of all the parties concerned that the assignment of the policy should only include the interest of Frank Zimmer in the stock of goods and the furniture and fixtures; but that by mutual mistake the assignment was made to include all the interest Frank Zimmer had in the policy; that while the policy was in full force, the stock of merchandise and the furniture and fixtures were damaged by fire; that at the time of the injury thereto the appellee was the owner of the merchandise and the furniture and fixtures; and that he had fully complied with all the conditions and terms of said policy on his part. William Koerner and Frank Zimmer, composing the firm of Koerner & Zimmer, were made parties defendant to answer to any interest they might have in the policy. A copy of the policy, with the written assignment thereon, was made an exhibit to the complaint.
The second paragraph is the same as the first, except it shows that the appellant waived the conditions in the policy requiring the insured to make proof of loss.
It is urged as an objection to each paragraph that the policy declared on is an entirety, and that the attempted assignment of a portion of it by Frank Zimmer was void, and conferred no rights upon the appellee. It is true that the consideration named in the policy is a single definite amount of money although the amount of the risk is apportioned in various sums to several distinct classes of property. It also appears that the several classes of property were exposed to the same conflagration and risk. Ordinarily the concurrence of these conditions makes the contract of insurance an entirety. If the property covered by the policy consist of several distinct items and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Manchester Fire Assur. Co. v. Glenn 1
...13 Ind.App. 36540 N.E. 926MANCHESTER FIRE ASSUR. CO.v.GLENN et al.1Appellate Court of Indiana.May 28, 1895 ... Appeal from circuit court, Washington county; S. B. Voyles, Judge.Action by James E. Glenn against the Manchester Fire Assurance Company and others. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant insurance company appeals. Affirmed.Chambers, Pickens & Moores, for appellant. R. J. Tracewell and Elliott & Hostetter, for appellees.LOTZ, J.This action was brought by the appellee against the appellant on a policy of fire insurance. The first ... ...