Omaha Fire Ins. Co. v. Dufek

• Decision Date: 05 March 1895
• Parties: OMAHA FIRE INS. CO. v. DUFEK.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

44 Neb. 241

62 N.W. 465

OMAHA FIRE INS. CO.

v.DUFEK.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

March 5, 1895.

Syllabus by the Court.

In a policy of insurance, a misdescription of the land whereon was situate certain personal property insured did not release the insurer from liability from loss, and, as a condition precedent to an action on the policy, no reformation thereof was necessary. Insurance Co. v. Gebhart, 49 N. W. 333, 32 Neb. 144, followed.

Error to district court, Saunders county; Bates, Judge.

Action by Mr. Dufek against the Omaha Fire Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.Hewett & Olmstead, for plaintiff in error.

Frick & Dolezal, for defendant in error.

RYAN, C.

This action was brought in the district court of Saunders county to recover the value of 22 tons of broom corn destroyed by fire. There was a verdict and judgment against the defendant in said district court for the sum of $900. The petition in error in effect presents but two questions,--one is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict; the other the admission of evidence to show that when the broom corn was insured and destroyed it was in a building situate on section 30, township 17 N., range 5 E., sixth principal meridian, instead of section 30, township 14, range aforesaid. There was no such an absence of evidence as would justify interference with the verdict, and no useful purpose could be subserved by reviewing it at length, merely to demonstrate the correctness of this conclusion, reached upon full consideration of the evidence. In relation to the mistaken description of the township above indicated, the testimony of Mr. Folda, the insurance company's agent who wrote the policy sued on, was as follows: “Some few days previous to the issuing of the insurance policy Mr. Dufek came in, and made an application for insurance on his buildings,--the house and other buildings situated on the premises. He gave me the application, the description being, I think, section 30, township 17, range 5, in Saunders county. He also stated to me that he was wishing to place some insurance on broom corn. I stated to him that I could not insure his broom corn that same day, as it was a prohibited risk by the company; but I would write to the company, and find out if they wished to place the risk. They did, and I placed the insurance on it. I wrote to the company, stating the facts, and when it came back I went ahead and issued the...