Phœnix Ins. Co. v. Gebhart
| Decision Date | 29 June 1891 |
| Citation | 32 Neb. 144,49 N.W. 333 |
| Parties | PHŒNIX INS. CO. v. GEBHART. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
A misdescription of the land on which property insured is situated will not of itself prevent a recovery in case of loss of the property by fire, nor is it necessary to reform the policy to entitle the assured to recover.
Error to district court, Buffalo county; HAMER, Judge.Calkins & Pratt, for plaintiff in error.
Greene & Hostetler, for defendant in error.
This action was brought on two premium notes given for a policy of insurance. One of said notes was due October 1, 1884, and the other April 1, 1885. The defendant, in his answer to an action on the notes, states “that he admits the execution of the notes sued on in said action, but avers the truth to be that said notes were executed for and in consideration of a policy of insurance issued by said plaintiff to this defendant; that said policy of insurance covered certain grain, hay, and stock; that said policy described said property as being situated on the following described premises, to-wit, section 5, town 15, range 19, in Custer county, Neb. Defendant says that said description was erroneous, and that said property was not situated on said above land, but was situated on section 5, town 15, range 18, in Custer county; that, so far as he knows and has information, the application for said policy of insurance contained said first description given herein, but that said description was erroneously so written by the plaintiff's agent who took said application, and so the defendant alleges the truth to be that said application was so erroneously written and contained said erroneous description aforesaid; that said policy aforesaid contained the following condition: ‘This insurance is based upon the representation contained in assured's application of even number herewith, on file in the company's office in Chicago, Ill., each and every statement of which is hereby specifically made a warranty, and a part hereof, and it is agreed that, if any false statements are made in said application, this policy shall be void;’ that upon receipt of said policy, and as soon as he discovered said mistake therein, he went to the agent of said plaintiff, and informed said agent of said mistake, and asked that the same be corrected; that thereupon said agent agreed to correct said mistake, but neglected to do so; that this defendant made frequent appeals to said plaintif...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
French v. State Farmers' Mut. Hail Ins. Co.
... ... question of consideration for the note. It did not affect the ... maker's liability on the note. Phenix Ins. Co. v ... Gebhart, 32 Neb. 144, 49 N.W. 333; Johnson v. Dakota F. & M. Ins. Co. 1 N.D. 167, 45 N.W. 799 ... Whether ... insured was guilty of ... ...
-
French v. State Farmers' Mut. Hail Ins. Co.
...section-as section 16 instead of 17-cannot, of itself, affect the risk, and would not render the policy void.” Phenix Ins. Co. v. Gebhart, 32 Neb. 144, 146, 49 N. W. 333, 334. In May, Ins. p. 872, § 566, it is said: “In most of the states, however, courts of law will apply the doctrines of ......
- Simms v. Bank of Alma
- Simms v. Bank of Alma