Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. v. Faires
| Decision Date | 25 March 1896 |
| Citation | 35 S.W. 55 |
| Parties | PENNSYLVANIA FIRE INS. CO. v. FAIRES. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Dallas county court; T. F. Nash, Judge.
Action by Mrs. S. P. Faires against the Pennsylvania Fire Insurance Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
Harris & Knight, for appellant. Wm. P. Ellison and R. E. Cowart, for appellee.
This suit was instituted by appellee to recover $500 from appellant, alleged to be due by virtue of a policy which insured certain household and kitchen furniture, wearing apparel, and bric-a-brac. Appellant set up a forfeiture on the grounds that the property, after being insured, was mortgaged without its consent; that appellee, in making proof of loss, had concealed the fact of the mortgage; that the property insured was not owned by appellee; that 60 days after the fire had elapsed before proof of loss was made; and that appellee, in violation of a condition of the policy, and without the consent of the insurer, had kept and used gasoline in the house in which the insured property was located. The case was tried by a jury, and resulted in a verdict for appellee for $500.
There was no error in overruling the third exception to the amended petition, which was to the effect that the petition did not show that the cause of action had accrued at the time of the filing of the suit. It is alleged that the fire occurred on September 8, 1892, that destroyed the property, and that thereby the defendant became indebted to plaintiff in the amount of the insurance. The suit was filed on December 14, 1892, more than three months after the destruction of the property. The petition does not show when the proof of loss was made, and there is nothing in its allegations that indicate that suit was brought before the expiration of 60 days from the time the proof of loss was made.
If there was any vitality in the objection to the proof made by J. W. Smith of the contents of the instrument containing the second proofs of loss, it was destroyed by the evidence of Langdeau, a witness for appellant, who testified, without objection, to the same facts.
Appellant offered to prove by J. C. Taylor, T. A. Williamson, and R. F. Williams that appellee, who was a witness in her own behalf, was a disreputable character, and at the time of the fire, and for a long time prior thereto was keeping an assignation house, which evidence was excluded by the court. In this action there was no error. While the right to ask a witness questions which are merely collateral to the issue, that may degrade him, has been extended very considerably in criminal cases (Carroll v. State [Tex. Cr. App.] 24 S. W. 100), yet we have seen no case where the inquiry was allowed to go beyond questions asked the witness himself on cross-examination. To permit proof such as that desired by appellant would inject issues into the trial of causes that would result in much consumption of time, and lead to no good results. We believe the rules for impeachment of witnesses enunciated in the admirable opinion by Judge Bell in Boon v. Weathered's Adm'r, 23 Tex....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
German Insurance Company of Freeport, Illinois v. Shader
... ... Levy v. Peabody Ins. Co., 10 W.Va. 560, 27 Am. Rep ... 598. Hence it was entirely proper to ... Jacobs v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 86 Iowa ... 145, 53 N.W. 101; Standard Accident Ins ... 348, ... 35 S.W. 428, 54 Am. St. Rep. 297; Pennsylvania Fire Ins ... Co. v. Faires, [68 Neb. 6] 13 Tex. Civ. App. 111, 35 ... ...
-
Kenefick and Hammond v. Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society
...no difference whether powder contributed to the loss or not. Horner v. Ins. Co., 93 Mo.App. 111; Kyte v. Ins. Co., 21 N.E. 361; Ins. Co. v. Faires, 35 S.W. 55; Martin v. Co., 52 N.W. 534; Bayer v. Ins. Co., 83 N.W. 124; Norways v. Ins. Co., 68 N.E. 551; Faulkner v. Ins. Co., 1 Kerr 279. (3)......
-
Norwaysz v. Thuringia Ins. Co.
...Home Fire Ins. Co., 83 Md. 312, 34 Atl. 875;Kyte v. Assurance Co., 149 Mass. 116, 21 N. E. 361,3 L. R. A. 508;Pennsylvania Ins. Co. v. Faires, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 111, 35 S. W. 55;Thomas v. Fame Ins. Co., 108 Ill. 91; Imperial Fire Ins. Co. v. County of Coos, supra. There are two general clas......
-
Commonwealth Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Nelligan, 12081.
...effect may be thus collated: Southland Life Ins. Co. v. Lawson, 137 Tex. 399, 152 S.W.2d 953, 136 A.L.R. 1212; Pennsylvania etc. Co. v. Faires, 13 Tex.Civ.App. 111, 35 S.W. 55; American National Ins. Co. v. Roberts, Tex.Civ.App., 146 S.W. 326; Bankers' Reserve Life Co. v. Sommers, Tex.Civ.A......