Mathes v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., No. 16080.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Bland |
| Citation | 6 S.W.2d 66 |
| Parties | MATHES v. WESTCHESTER FIRE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK. |
| Docket Number | No. 16080. |
| Decision Date | 02 April 1928 |
v.
WESTCHESTER FIRE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK.
[6 S.W.2d 67]
Appeal from Circuit Court, Adair County; James A. Cooley, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Suit by A. R. Mathes against the Westchester Fire Insurance Company of New York. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
J. E. Rieger, of Kirksville, for appellant.
Hogsett & Boyle and Ralph E. Murray, all of Kansas City, for respondent.
BLAND, J.
This is a suit upon a policy insuring Ed. Bentley from April 6, 1925, to April 6, 1926, against fire, among other things, to his automobile. The case was tried by the court without the aid of a jury. At the close of plaintiff's evidence defendant offered an instruction which plaintiff claims is a demurrer to the evidence but which defendant insists is in the form of a finding for the defendant upon the evidence. This instruction was given and for the purpose of disposing of this appeal, we may regard it as a demurrer to the evidence, and therefore we will state the evidence in its most favorable light to plaintiff.
Defendant claims that the policy of insurance was in the nature of a gaming contract in that neither Ed. Bentley nor plaintiff, who is his assignee, for lack of any title to the automobile, had any insurable interest therein at the time the policy was issued or at the time of its assignment to plaintiff.
The facts show that the certificate of title to the automobile in question was issued by the secretary of state on April 16, 1924, to one Fred Tull of Kirksville, and that on February 23, 1925, the certificate was duly assigned by Tull to the Vaught Motor Company of said city; that on April 6, 1925, the said Bentley purchased the car from the Vaught Motor Company, agreeing to pay in installments the purchase price of the same; that he made one payment upon the car and being unable to continue making the payments, requested the Vaught Motor Company to sell the car to some one else. Said company, on April 25, 1925, sold and delivered the car to plaintiff. The car was consumed by fire on August 30, 1925, while in plaintiff's possession. The car was never taken out of the possession of the Vaught Motor Company by Bentley and the certificate of title was never assigned to him.
On the day that Bentley bought the car he took out the insurance policy in suit through the agent of the defendant, one Jones, who conducted his insurance business under the name of the Service Realty Company in Kirksville. At that time the certificate of title was presented to Jones and the description of the automobile, which he inserted in the policy, was obtained by him from the certificate. On April 25, when the car was sold by the Vaught Motor Company to plaintiff, Mr. Vaught of that company and plaintiff saw Jones and explained to him the circumstance surrounding the election of Bentley not to take the car and that the same had been sold to plaintiff. Jones was asked whether it would be necessary to take out a new policy in favor of plaintiff and the former advised that all that was necessary to be done was to have the policy that had been issued to Bentley assigned to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kesinger v. Burtrum, No. 7458
...Anderson v. Arnold-Strong Motor Co., 229 Mo.App. 1170, 88 S.W.2d 419, 421(2); Mathes v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. of New York, Mo.App., 6 S.W.2d 66, 68(2); Weaver v. Lake, Mo.App., 4 S.W.2d 834, 835; Quinn v. Gehlert, Mo.App., 291 S.W. 10 Boyer v. Garner, Mo.App., 15 S.W.2d 893; Perkins v. ......
-
Moore v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 8291
...mere intention to comply with the law as the equivalent of compliance [cf. Mathes v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. of New York, Mo.App., 6 S.W.2d 66, 67], or to determine cases in this general category on the basis of what may seem to be the fireside equities of the situation. See Hoshaw v. Fen......
-
Mackie and Williams Food Stores v. Anchor Casualty Co., No. 15060.
...268 S.W. 87, 37 A.L.R. 1456; Evens v. Home Ins. Co., 231 Mo.App. 932, 82 S.W.2d 111, and Mathes v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., Mo.App., 6 S.W.2d 66, controlling. We find that they are If Mackie operated or drove the vehicles he purchased upon the highways of Missouri, the law required him to......
-
Still v. Travelers Indem. Co., No. 49837
...with said law.' 268 S.W. 90. This case has been followed subsequently in Mathes v. Westchester Fire Insurance Co. of N. Y., Mo.App., 6 S.W.2d 66; Evens v. Home Insurance Co. of N. Y., 231 Mo.App. 932, 82 S.W.2d 111; Kelso v. Kelso, Mo.Sup., 306 S.W.2d 534, 71 A.L.R.2d 258; Bordman Investmen......
-
Kesinger v. Burtrum, No. 7458
...Anderson v. Arnold-Strong Motor Co., 229 Mo.App. 1170, 88 S.W.2d 419, 421(2); Mathes v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. of New York, Mo.App., 6 S.W.2d 66, 68(2); Weaver v. Lake, Mo.App., 4 S.W.2d 834, 835; Quinn v. Gehlert, Mo.App., 291 S.W. 10 Boyer v. Garner, Mo.App., 15 S.W.2d 893; Perkins v. ......
-
Moore v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 8291
...mere intention to comply with the law as the equivalent of compliance [cf. Mathes v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. of New York, Mo.App., 6 S.W.2d 66, 67], or to determine cases in this general category on the basis of what may seem to be the fireside equities of the situation. See Hoshaw v. Fen......
-
Mackie and Williams Food Stores v. Anchor Casualty Co., No. 15060.
...268 S.W. 87, 37 A.L.R. 1456; Evens v. Home Ins. Co., 231 Mo.App. 932, 82 S.W.2d 111, and Mathes v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., Mo.App., 6 S.W.2d 66, controlling. We find that they are If Mackie operated or drove the vehicles he purchased upon the highways of Missouri, the law required him to......
-
Still v. Travelers Indem. Co., No. 49837
...with said law.' 268 S.W. 90. This case has been followed subsequently in Mathes v. Westchester Fire Insurance Co. of N. Y., Mo.App., 6 S.W.2d 66; Evens v. Home Insurance Co. of N. Y., 231 Mo.App. 932, 82 S.W.2d 111; Kelso v. Kelso, Mo.Sup., 306 S.W.2d 534, 71 A.L.R.2d 258; Bordman Investmen......