National Liberty Ins. Co. of America v. Thrall

• Decision Date: 20 July 1942
• Docket Number: 34.
• Citation: 27 A.2d 353,181 Md. 19
• Parties: NATIONAL LIBERTY INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. THRALL et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

27 A.2d 353

181 Md. 19

NATIONAL LIBERTY INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. THRALL et al.

No. 34.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

July 20, 1942

Appeal from Circuit Court for Prince George's County; John B Gray and Charles C. Marbury, Judges.

Suit by William S. Thrall and the First National Bank of St Mary's against the National Liberty Insurance Company of America, to recover on a fire policy. From a judgment in favor of the First National Bank of St. Mary's, the defendant appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

J Dudley Digges, of Upper Marlboro (Sasscer & Digges, of Upper Marlboro, on the brief), for appellant.

T. Van Clagett, Jr., of Upper Marlboro, and J. Paul Bailey, of Washington, D. C. (A. Kingsley Love, of Leonardtown, on the brief), for appellees.

Before BOND, C.J., and SLOAN, DELAPLAINE, FORSYTHE, and MARBURY, JJ.

SLOAN Judge.

This suit is on a fire insurance policy issued by the National Liberty Insurance Company of America to William S. Thrall on a store building and stock of merchandise at Bushwood in St. Mary's County. The policy was for $2,500, of which $1,500 was on the building and $1,000 on the stock. The loss, if any, was payable to William S. Thrall and to the First National Bank of St. Mary's, which had liens on this and other property of Thrall much in excess of the amount of the policy. The store and contents were totally destroyed by fire April 30, 1935. Proof of loss was furnished the insurer three weeks later, and on its refusal to pay, suit was brought in St. Mary's County, August 10, 1935, whence, on October 25, 1935, it was removed to Prince George's County. The declaration joined William S. Thrall and the First National Bank of St. Mary's as plaintiffs. The insurer demurred, but before any action on the demurrer, an amended declaration was filed May 5, 1936, in which the 'First National Bank of St. Mary's, a body corporate, and First National Bank of St. Mary's, a body corporate, Assignee of William S. Thrall,' were named as plaintiffs. Over a year later, on August 6, 1937, a second amended declaration was filed in which William S. Thrall and First National Bank of St. Mary's were named as plaintiffs, to which the defendant filed nine pleas; the first two general issues, the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth pleaded the failure of the insured to keep a full and complete inventory and record of sales as required by the policy, the seventh, the violation of the terms of the iron safe clause. The eighth and ninth pleas were pleas of limitations, alleging that the parties plaintiff named in the second amended declaration filed August 6, 1937, over two years after the fire, were not the same parties named in the first amended declaration filed May 5, 1936, the policy requiring any action to be taken within twelve months next after the fire. The plaintiffs filed their replication, joining issue on the first and second pleas, traversing the others. The defendant for rejoinder joined issue on the replication to the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh pleas, and demurred to the eighth and ninth replications. The demurrer was sustained, and the next entry was 'Issue joined on the 8th and 9th pleas.' There was an instructed verdict for the defendant against Thrall, and a judgment in favor of the First National Bank of St. Mary's for $1,500, the insurance on the building, from which the Insurance Company, defendant, appeals.

There are thirteen exceptions, the first to the admission in evidence of the insurance policy, which the defendant contends was improper because of the ruling on the demurrer to the eighth and ninth replications.

The second and third exceptions went to the qualifications of R. Bascom Broun, Jr., cashier of the bank, to testify as to the value of the insured property; the fourth to the sufficiency of the proof of loss; the fifth and sixth were to the qualifications of Mr. Thrall, the owner, to testify as to its value, the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth were on questions to Mr. Broun as to whether obligations to the bank had been paid.

The thirteenth exception was to adverse rulings on the prayers. The plaintiffs had one prayer, which was granted; the defendant fourteen, one of which, the tenth, was withdrawn, three were granted, and ten refused.

The question argued almost exclusively was the contention that the claim of the First National Bank of St. Mary's was barred by contractual limitations because suit was not instituted within the period of one year as provided in the insurance policy. The question was raised by the demurrer to the eighth and ninth replication to the eighth and ninth pleas, and by the first exception, which was to the court allowing the insurance policy to be introduced in evidence, and the first and fourteenth prayers, both of which asked directed verdicts, the first assuming the truth of its eighth and ninth pleas which were not true as to the bank. The defendant offered no protest nor objection to issues being joined on its eighth and ninth pleas, and assumes that the ruling on its demurrer amounted to a nonsuit. This naturally suggests the question as to whether a trial judge is bound at the trial to accept the rulings on the pleadings which have been passed upon by another judge.

Trial courts are bound by the decisions of the Court of Appeals, until they may be overruled. Until then they are precedents to be followed and obeyed. There is no decision or statute which requires one nisiprius judge to accept as final and conclusive the decisions on the law before trial of another judge or court. There seems to be some sense, however, in the idea that the trial judge, who occupies a position of greater responsibility, should have the right to reject a prior decision of a judge of equal jurisdiction in the same case which he may believe to be erroneous. It is not necessary, however, to decide this question, as we have reached a conclusion on other grounds.

The rule is that a plea of limitations must be traversed. What it should have done was to compel the plaintiffs either to non pros or take an appeal from the ruling on demurrer. The declarations had never changed so far as the interest of the bank was concerned, the contract, the subject matter of the suit, remained the same. It is admitted that the original declaration was filed in less than a year after the fire. It is well settled that when a belated amended declaration introduces a new cause...