Quarrier v. Peabody.
Decision Date | 01 May 1877 |
Parties | Quarrier, Trustee v. Peabody Insurance Company and Quarrier, Trustee v. AEtna Fire and Marine Insurance Company. (Absent, Haymond, Judge). |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
the court, should not be in person or by attorney, but may be by its president.
material facts, should be direct and positive, and not by way of recital.
office of the corporation and of its president's residence, should be as of the time the action was brought.
or will take further cognizance of the action, and not the action abate and be dismissed.
strictness of the common law, both as to the form and substance, is still required, and a failure of such a plea in any of 'the particulars above indicated would be fatal, and such defective plea should, on motion of the plaintiff, be stricken from the record.
tive, and not as the plaintiff believes.
sary for the plaintiff to allege an interest in the property insured, which is insufficiently done by the allegation that the defendant insured the plaintiff's property.
in sixty days after proof and notice given the defendant, in the manner required by the policy, it is necessary for the declaration to allege this manner, and that such proof and notice were accordingly given. And a failure to make these allegations, or the allegation of interest, is fatal to the declaration on general demurrer.
caused by the lire, it is necessary to allege that the adjustment was made with the defendant, and this is insufficiently done by an allegation that it (the adjustment) was made with an agent of the defendant; and it is also necessary to allege that the defendant promised to pay the amount of such adjustment, And a failure to make such allegations is fatal to the declaration on general demurrer.
10. A provision in a policy that the assured shall recover such a portion of the loss only as the sum assured bears to the whole amount of insurance, refers to the whole amount of insurance at the time of the loss, and does not impliedly require the assured to keep up other insurances on the property which were in existence when the policy issued.
11. A policy contained a provision that if the'assured should make any other insurance on the property, or.any part thereof, or if the property should be sold or transferred, or any change should take place in the title or possession thereof, without the company's consent, the policy should be void; and also a provision that when the property has been sold or otherwise disposed of, so that all the interest on the part of the assured has ceased, the insurance on such property should terminate. Held:
That the insurance on the entire property is not by these provisions forfeited by a sale of a portion of the property without the consent of the company.
12. A policy contained a provision that if the interest of the assured is not truly stated, or be other than the entire unconditional and sole ownership, and must be so expressed in the policy, under penalty of its forfeiture. Held:
The policy is not rendered void by the fact that it simply describes the property as the property of the assured, and fails to mention that there was at the time the policy issued a deed of trust on the property insured, no inquiry having been made about the state of the title.
13. What does not amount to an adjustment.
14. On a demurrer to the evidence by the defendant, the facts proven sustain the case of the plaintiff, hut i t is so defectively. stated in the declaration that the court or. the demurrer to the declaration ought to have sustained the demurrer. This Court should set aside the judgment for the plaintiff, and re mand the. cause, with directions that the plaintiff have leave to amend his declaration, if advised so to do.
These eases were brought to this Court, by'writs of error and supersedeas, allowed upon petitions of the defendants below, respectively, to judgments rendered by the circuit court of Kanawha county, on the 11th day of December, 1874.
In one of the said suits, William A. Quarrier, trustee for Mrs. D. R. Laidley, was plaintiff below, and The Pea body Insurance Company was defendant below; in the other, William A. Quarrier, trustee for Mrs. D. R. Laidley, was plaintiff below, and The AEtna Fire and Marine Insurance Company was defendant below.
Green, President, who delivered the opinion of the Court sufficiently states the cases..
The Hon. Joseph Smith, Judge of the seventh judicial circuit rendered the judgments in these cases below.
William H. Hogeman, for the plaintiffs in error, referred to the following authorities:
1 Phil Ev. 478; 1 Green. Ev. §212; May on Ins. §273, 277; 10 Wall., 35; 6 Rob, Pr., 68;. 3 Gray 593; 2 (5, 10, N. Y.) 53; 2 Green. Ev. §401-5; 3 Phil Ev., 235; State Bank v. Bell, 5 Blackf., 127; Code W. Va., ch. 125, §39; 1 R, C, 496; Jackson v. Webster, 6 Munf, 462; B. & 0. R. R. Co. v. Gallahue's adm'r, 12 Gratt, 664; Winston's ex'or v. Francisco, 2 Wash., 187; Sexton v. Holmes, 3Munf., 566; Cooker. Simms, 2 Call., 39; Wooddy v. Flournoy, 6 Munf., 506; Wingo v. Brown, 12 Rich. (S. C), 279; Muldrows v. Tappan, 6 Mo., 276; McNulty v. Collins, 7 Mo., 69; Bruner v. Stout, Hard. (Ky.), 225; Benden v. Manning, 2 N. H., 289; 4 Rob. Pr., 230; Hartford Bank v. Hart, 3 Day (Conn.), 493: Mt. Sterling Co. v. Looney, 1 Mete. (Ky.), 530; MaCullough v. Moss, 5 Ben. (N. Y.), 567; Wells v. Pacific R. R. Co., 35 Mo., 164; St. Andrew's Bay Land Co. v. Mitchell, 4 Fla., 192; 2 Rob. Pr., 302; May on Ins., §2, 7, 8, 116, 117; 3 Kent's Com., 371; 3 Rob. Pr., 552; May on Ins., §587;
Muhleman v. Ncdional Insurance Company, 6 W. Va. 518; McFarland & Steele v. Peabody Insurance Company, 6 W. Va. 432; Jewett v. Home Insurance Company, 29 Iowa, 562; Columbian Insurance Company v. Lawrence, 2 Pet., 53; Hoxie v. Home Insurance Company, 32 Conn., 40; 58 Pa., 444, 452; Security Insurance Company v. Fay, 22 Mich., 467; Gould v. York County Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 47 Me., 403; Lovejoy v. Augusta Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 45 Me., 472; Barnes v. Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 51 Me., 110; Trustees Fire Association v. Williamson, 26 Pa. St., 196; Friesmouth v. Agawam Insurance Company, 10 Cush., 587; Brown v. People's Insurance Company, 10 Cush., 280; Kimball v. Howard Insurance Company, 8 Gray, 33; Associcded Fireman's Insurance Company v. Assum, 5 Md., 165; Dibol v. Minot, 9 Iowa, 403; Boynton v. Clinton and, Essex Insurance Company, 16 Barb., 24; 17 Ohio St., 432; 2 Parsons on Con., 32; 1 Chitty PL (16 Am. Ed.), 577.
C. E. Doddridge, for defendants in error, cited the following authorities:
Code W. Va., ch. 124, p. 594-5; Acts 1871, ch. 43, p. 63; Code W. Va., ch. 125, §29; 2 Phillips on Ins., 480; May on Ins., §272, 278; 4 Rob. Pr., 441, 442; May on Ins., 319, 320; Osborn. Bank of U. S., 9 Wheat, 738; 1 Chitty PL, 428, 531; Code W. Va., 605; Matthew's Forms, 113, 114, 115; 3 Mass., 160; 6 Leigh, 95-6; 4 Rob. Pr., 230; 4 Hump., (Tenn.) 303; Bell v. Hobbs, Ga., Dec, Part, 2, 144; 2 Abbott, U. S. Dig., 96-97; Enfer v. Shaw; 2 Wend., 567; Bank of Columbia v. Paterson, 7; Cranch, 306, 307; Cooke v.Simms, 2 Call, 36; Code W. Va., 603, §29; 2 Phillips on Ins., 480, 482; 4 Rob. Pr., 441, 442; May on Ins., §272, 319, 320, 278.
Smith and Knight, for defendants in error, cited the following authorities:
Code W. Va., 605, §39; Stevens' PL, 394, 405; 1 Chitty PL, 445, 462, 551; Commonwealth use of Brown v. Fry, et al, 4 W. Va. 721; Code W. Va., 603, §28, 29; Code W.Va., 637, §3; 1 Rob. Pr., 404, 405; 2 Phillips on Ins., §2151; 1 (old) Rob. Pr., 351, 352; 5 Gratt., 364."
Green, President, delivered the opinion of the Court.
In the first of these causes, the plaintiff, on July 1, 1870, brought an action of assumpsit in the circuit court of Kanawha county, against the defendant. The basis of the action was a policy of insurance against fire, issued by the defendant to the plaintiff, of which the following are the contents, so far as they have any bearing on this case:
$2000.00. One year. Premium $30.00.
"And the said company hereby agree to...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Co. Lane v. Parsons, Rich & Co. (In re Millers)
-
Parsons, Rich & Co. v. Lane
... ... Ripley v. Ætna, 30 N. Y. 136, 86 Am. Dec. 362; New York v. Watson, 23 Mich. 486; McFarland v. Peabody, 6 W. Va. 430; Merchants v. Lacroix, 45 Tex. 158, 168; Northwestern v. Amerman, 119 Ill. 329, 10 N. E. 225, 59 Am. Rep. 799 ... In Quarrier v. Peabody, 10 W. Va. 507, 27 Am. Rep. 582, it was held that the existence of a deed of trust did not violate the condition as to sole and ... ...
- Lulu v. Swartzwelder
-
Parsons, Rich & Co. v. Lane
... ... the condition. Ripley v. AEtna, 30 N.Y. 136, 86 Am ... Dec. 362; New York v. Watson, 23 Mich. 486; ... McFarland v. Peabody", 6 W.Va. 430; Merchants v ... Lacroix, 45 Tax. 158, 168; Northwestern v ... Amerman, 119 Ill. 329, 10 N.E. 225, 59 Am. Rep. 799 ... \xC2" ... inquiries are made, when not fraudulent, is not in itself ... fraudulent concealment which will invalidate a policy. In ... Quarrier v. Peabody, 10 W.Va. 507, 27 Am. Rep. 582, ... it was held that the existence of a deed of trust did not ... violate the condition as to sole and ... ...