Palatine Ins. Co. v. McKinley

• Decision Date: 09 May 1896
• Citation: 37 S.W. 1133
• Parties: PALATINE INS. CO. v. McKINLEY.<SMALL><SUP>2</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

37 S.W. 1133

PALATINE INS. CO. v. McKINLEY.²

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

May 9, 1896.

Appeal from district court, Hopkins county; E. W. Terhune, Judge. Action by William G. McKinley against the Palatine Insurance Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Morgan & Thompson, for appellant. Templeton & Crosby, for appellee.

LIGHTFOOT, C. J.

This suit was brought by William G. McKinley, appellee, against the appellant insurance company, to recover the sum of $1,100 on a policy of insurance; the same being $275 on merchandise, $500 on building, $300 on furniture, and $25 on awnings. The defenses were: Breach of the iron-safe clause, requiring the keeping, and production after fire, of books and invoices; fraud; false swearing; and arson. The case was tried before a jury on May 10, 1895, resulting in a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $775.53; being $500 on house, $257.53 on furniture, etc., and $18.10 on awnings. There was nothing found against appellant for the stock of goods. From this judgment the insurance company has appealed. There is no statement of facts in the record, nor bills of exceptions; and the first and third assignments of error, calling in question the charge of the court, cannot be considered by us, in the absence of a statement of facts. The only remaining assignment of error is the fourth, which is as follows: "The court erred in overruling defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; the jury having found, under the charge of the court, that the iron-safe clause had not been complied with by plaintiff." Under this assignment there are no propositions, statement, or authorities cited by the appellant. It is assumed by appellant that no judgment can be rendered in this case against it upon any part of the policy if the iron-safe clause, which refers exclusively to the stock of goods, was not complied with. We cannot agree to this contention. Bills v. Insurance Co., 87 Tex. 551, 29 S. W. 1063. For a more thorough discussion of the iron-safe clause and the questions growing out of it, we refer to the opinion of Finley, J., in the case of Insurance Co. v. McKinley, 37 S. W. 606, which is a companion case to this, decided at the present term. In the absence of a statement of facts, it does not appear to us whether the iron-safe clause was complied with or not, or whether there were any goods on hand at the time of the fire, or any burned. We find no error in the...