Mattocks v. Des Moines Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 12 March 1888
• Citation: 74 Iowa 233,37 N.W. 174
• Parties: MATTOCKS v. DES MOINES INS. CO.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

74 Iowa 233

37 N.W. 174

MATTOCKS

v.DES MOINES INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 12, 1888.

Appeal from district court, Woodbury county; G. M. WAKEFIELD, Judge.

Action on a policy of fire insurance. Trial to the court, judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals.Cole, McVey & Clark, for appellant.

Lawrence & Baird, for appellee.

SEEVERS, C. J.

1. The policy provides that it “shall be void and of no effect if, without permission therefor in writing hereon, the assured shall now have, or hereafter procure, another policy of insurance, whether valid or not, on property covered, in whole or in part, by this policy.” There was additional insurance in another company, and therefore it is insisted the plaintiff cannot recover. But there was evidence tending to show that an agent of the defendant was notified of such additional insurance, and that he signed a paper authorizing or permitting it. It is said such consent was not indorsed in writing on the policy, but this we do not think was material. The permission was in writing, and the material object of the condition is that the permission shall be in writing, and therefore definite and certain, and so disputes as to its contents could not arise. It is further said there was no evidence the agent was authorized to execute the permit, but we think there was sufficient evidence to warrant the court in finding that such agent had the requisite authority.

2. Another condition of the policy provides that it should be void if the property insured was mortgaged or otherwise incumbered. The evidence shows there were four mortgages on the property, as shown by the records, but it shows that there was but one which was in force. There was evidence tending to show that notice of such mortgage was given to the agent who insured or wrote the policy, and that he gave the written consent of the company that the policy should continue in force notwithstanding the mortgage. The court was warranted in so finding, under the evidence.

3. Another condition of the policy provides that it shall be void unless the insured was the unconditional owner of the property. There was evidence tending to show that the property was owned by one Williams, and he conveyed it to the plaintiff in 1883, and the deed was left with one Cleland to deliverto her, but she did not receive it until after the fire. We think this sufficiently shows the plaintiff was the owner of the property. The delivery to Cleland was for her...