Morley v. Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 28 July 1892
• Parties: MORLEY v. LIVERPOOL, LONDON & GLOBE INS. CO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

52 N.W. 939

92 Mich. 590

MORLEY v. LIVERPOOL, LONDON & GLOBE INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 28, 1892

Error to circuit court, Saginaw county; JOHN A. EDGET, Judge.

Action by George W. Morley against the Liverpool, London & Globe Insurance Company on a fire policy. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Wisner & Draper, (Benton Hanchett, of counsel,) for appellant.

William G. Gage, (L. C. Holden, of counsel,) for appellee.

GRANT J.

The essential facts in this case are sufficiently stated in 85 Mich. 212, 48 N.W. 502. A second trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff. Two errors are now assigned; one involving the rejection of evidence, and the other the charge of the court.

1. Emanuel Lenhoff, the son of Joseph M. Lenhoff, the real party in interest, was produced as a witness for the plaintiff, and testified to the condition and value of the goods, and the character of the damage done by the fire. On cross-examination he was asked the following question: "Don't you know that your father had not been making money enough to pay his bills?" Joseph M. Lenhoff was also produced as a witness, and upon cross-examination, while being examined as to his financial condition, business, and expenses preceding and at the date of the fire, was asked, "What was the amount of your gas bills?" These questions were excluded as not within any defense set up in the plea. When the first question was asked, and objection made, the court asked counsel for the defendant what bearing the character of the business immediately preceding the fire had upon the defense, to which counsel replied: "We have no doubt, and claim in this case from the evidence, that this was an incendiary fire, and that this is an important consideration in determining the questions that arose afterwards as to the fraudulent purpose of Mr. Lenhoff in making his proofs of loss and claim under these bills." When the second question was asked, counsel stated that the purpose and object of it was to show one step in the perpetration of this fraud by incendiarism. After the ruling of the court was made, counsel for defendant stated that they understood that the ruling covered any testimony tending to show the condition of Lenhoff's business at the time of the fire to which the court replied: "Yes, except as it may tend to show a motive for misrepresentation as to the amount of his stock. This has no tendency of that kind, and the objection is therefore sustained." Other remarks passed between the court and counsel, after which the court again said: "The ruling simply goes to the extent now...