National Fire Ins. Co. v. School Dist. No. 68
| Decision Date | 14 October 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 2083.,2083. |
| Citation | 115 F.2d 232 |
| Parties | NATIONAL FIRE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN. v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 68, SEQUOYAH COUNTY, OKL. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
John F. Webster, of Oklahoma City, Okl. (F. A. Rittenhouse and Walter D. Hanson, both of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellant.
J. Fred Green, of Sallisaw, Okl. (W. B. Wall, of Sallisaw, Okl., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges.
On May 17, 1938, the National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut,1 issued its policy of insurance to School District No. 68, Sequoyah County, Oklahoma,2 insuring a certain school building and the contents thereof against loss from fire for a period of one year. On April 8, 1939, the school building and contents were destroyed by fire. The District brought this action to recover on the policy. Trial by jury was waived and the cause tried to the court. The court found that the actual cash value of the building was in excess of $3,500, and the actual cash value of the contents was $499.75. From a judgment in favor of the District for $3,999.75, with interest at six per cent per annum from April 8, 1939, the Insurance Company has appealed.
At the trial below counsel for both parties announced that the only issue involved was the value of the building.
W. N. Formby, the contractor who constructed the building, testified that it was built in 1919; that it cost between seven and eight thousand dollars; that it was constructed of brick, cement, and lumber; that the materials used were all of first grade, and that it was well constructed; that he was familiar with the condition of the building at the time of the fire and in his opinion it was worth $5,000.
Harry M. House, state planning engineer for the Works Progress Administration of Oklahoma, testified in behalf of the Insurance Company that a project proposal had been made by the District to the Works Progress Administration for the construction of a new school building for the District at a cost of $22,991.81, $16,696.90 thereof to be provided from federal funds and $6,194.91 from sponsors, with an allowance for salvage materials from the old building of $1,421.
Joe R. Davis, an architect, testified in behalf of the District that it would cost between $800 and $1,000 to realize the salvage value of $1,421; that the building prior to the fire was in good condition except a few leaks in the roof; that the walls were in good condition and free from cracks; that the woodwork and framework in the building were in good condition; and that it would have cost $6,210.51 to replace the building.
Counsel for the Insurance Company contend that the value of the building was the salvage value of $1,421.
We are not impressed with the contention that merely because it was proposed to construct a new school building largely through funds provided through the Works Progress Administration that the school building destroyed by the fire had nothing more than salvage value at the time of its destruction. The evidence established that the building was 20 years old; that it was constructed from first class materials and, with the exception of needed repairs to the roof, was in good condition. The purpose of the Works Progress Administration activities is to provide work for unemployed. Approximately 72 per cent of the cost of the new building was to be provided from federal funds. It is common knowledge that many municipalities and districts have provided for new buildings through federal aid in order to create jobs for unemployed where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clegg v. Conk
...(1941); Smith v. Welch, 189 F.2d 832 (10th Cir. 1951); State v. Neustadt, 149 F.2d 143 (10th Cir. 1945); National Fire Ins. Co. v. School Dist. No. 68, 115 F.2d 232 (10th Cir. 1940). Cf. Murphy v. Dyer, 409 F.2d 747 (10th Cir. 1969).18 See footnote 8 for the trial court's charge as to Conk.......
-
Justheim Petroleum Company v. Hammond
...Co. v. Himonas, 10 Cir., 190 F.2d 1012; State ex rel. Williams v. Neustadt, 10 Cir., 149 F.2d 143; National Fire Insurance Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. School Dist. No. 68, 10 Cir., 115 F.2d 232. The court instructed the jury that "There are five elements in the concept of fraud and in order t......
-
Fitzpatrick v. Board of Ed., City of Enid Public Schools
...HEW witnesses. E.g., Colonial Refrigerated Transp. Inc. v. Mitchell, 403 F.2d 541, 552 (5th Cir. 1968); National Fire Ins. Co. v. School Dist. No. 68, 115 F.2d 232, 234 (10th Cir. 1940). The trial judge had already indicated his willingness to take such action. Inasmuch as the trial judge e......
-
Kortz v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.
...trial court by objection, exception, or in some other appropriate manner, will not be reviewed on appeal. National Fire Insurance Co. v. School District No. 68, 10 Cir., 115 F.2d 232. The judgment is PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge. I concur in the result and with all of the opinion, except the fol......