New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. James
| Decision Date | 20 December 1935 |
| Citation | 166 So. 813,122 Fla. 710 |
| Parties | NEW AMSTERDAM CASUALTY CO. v. JAMES et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 14, 1936.
Error to Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; L. L. Parks, Judge.
Suit by Susie G. James and another against the New Amsterdam Casualty Company. To review an adverse judgment, defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Claibourne M. Phipps and Reginald L. Williams, both of Tampa, for plaintiff in error.
Mabry Reaves, Carlton & White, of Tampa, for defendants in error.
This case is before us on writ of error to a judgment of the circuit court of Hillsborough county, Fla., in a suit instituted by the defendants in error on a burglary insurance policy issued by plaintiff in error.
The declaration was clearly drawn so as to keep the case within the jurisdiction of the state court and to avoid litigation in the federal courts. The ad damnum clause was in the amount of the sum of $2,999. The insurance policy was attached to and made a part of the declaration.
Bill of particulars attached to the declaration showed the value of the property alleged to have been lost by burglary to be in the sum of $4,323.50.
The plaintiff in error first contends that a certain witness was not qualified as an expert to testify as to his opinion of the value of the property stolen, which consisted of diamond rings, a diamond brooch, and a wrist watch with diamond settings.
The witness whose testimony was specifically objected to was one P. O. Wilson.
To qualify as a witness to testify as to the value of diamonds the record shows the testimony of Mr. Wilson to have been as follows:
'
We think this clearly showed that Mr. Wilson was qualified to testify concerning the value of diamonds.
Second, it is contended that it was not proper to permit a witness to testify as to the value of perfect diamonds of similar size where no proper evidence was before the jury that the stones involved were perfect. As the record does not show that there was no evidence before the jury that the stones involved were not perfect, but there is evidence to show that the stones involved were perfect stones, and that evidence was not contradicted, the objection is not tenable.
It is next contended that the court erred in entering judgment for attorney's fees in this suit where there was no allegation concerning attorney's fees in the declaration. This point has been settled adversely to the contention of the plaintiff in error under the provisions of section 4263, R.G.S., section 6220, C.G.L., in the opinion and judgment of this court in the case of National Benefit Life Insurance Co. v. Ansel L. Brown, 103 Fla. 758, 139 So. 193, 194, in which we said:
The next contention is that it was error for the court to allow introduced in evidence certain photographs of the fingerprints which were not shown by the evidence to be those of an intruder upon the premises. We think there was no error in admitting this evidence because the record shows that the photographs were not the photographs of fingerprints of members of the family who had access to the building.
It is next contended that the circuit court erred in refusing to allow defendant to introduce in evidence a bill of complaint for divorce filed by the wife against the husband (the wife being the beneficiary in the insurance policy) alleging that before and after the date of the supposed burglary her husband had been abusive and had accused her of improper relations with other men; such evidence being offered upon the theory that it might shed some light upon circumstances which had been theretofore shown in evidence, to wit, that there were large footprints back of some shrubbery in the yard found there immediately after the burglary was committed. We can imagine no theory under which the allegations in such divorce bill would have been material evidence in this case.
The same observation applies to the next contention that it was error for ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stockman v. Downs
...where the claim was based on statute. Prudence Mut. Casualty Co. v. Washington, 211 So.2d 556 (Fla.1968); New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. James, 122 Fla. 710, 166 So. 813 (1935); National Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 103 Fla. 758, 139 So. 193 (1931). Most decisions of the district courts o......
-
Autorico, Inc. v. Government Employees Ins. Co.
...Mutual Casualty Co. v. Washington, 211 So.2d 556 (Fla.1968), citing a trilogy of Supreme Court cases; New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. James, 122 Fla. 710, 166 So. 813 (1936); National Benefit Life Insurance Co. v. Brown, 103 Fla. 758, 139 So. 193 (1931); United States Fire Insurance Co. v. Di......
-
Prudence Mut. Cas. Co. v. Washington
...the District Court in the consideration of the three cases referred to. 2 The decision now under review predicates its reversal upon the New Amsterdam case. In that case, relying solely on the National Benefit Life case, this Court said a demand for such fees in the pleadings was no longer ......
-
Claiborne v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co.
...for cases involving a similar method of evaluating a stolen diamond and could find but one analogous case, New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. James, 122 Fla. 710, 166 So. 813, which was an action on a burglary policy for the loss of some diamonds. In a syllabus therein this language is 'In actio......