Rymer v. Fidelity & Guaranty Fire Corp., 32686
| Decision Date | 16 March 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 32686,32686,2 |
| Citation | 81 Ga.App. 308,58 S.E.2d 471 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | RYMER v. FIDELITY & GUARANTY FIRE CORPORATION |
Mitchell, Mitchell, Bolling & Mitchell, Dalton, for plaintiff in error.
Hardin & McCamy, Dalton, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. Where in an action upon a policy of insurance for the loss of an automobile, the insurer defends upon the ground that the plaintiff had no insurable interest in the automobile because the car which he sought to insure under the policy had been stolen from a named person; and, where upon the trial, in seeking to establish this defense, the insurer placed on the stand the confessed thief of the automobile of the named person, who testified that after he had stolen the automobile of the named person, he enlisted the aid of two confederates in disposing of the car and they together took the car to a certain house and sold it to a man to him unknown, but that the confederates said it was the plaintiff's house and the confederates were not present at the trial and did not testify that the car was taken to the plaintiff's house, the testimony of the thief that the car was taken to the house of the plaintiff was hearsay pure and simple, and its admission in evidence was harmful to the plaintiff in that it permitted the jury to infer that the automobile which the plaintiff sought to insure was the stolen car to which he could have obtained no title or insurable interest whereas the jury might not have done so with this evidence excluded. Even if the confederates were not available to testify that the house in question was the house of the plaintiff, the defendant insurer could have identified the house to which the stolen car was taken as that of the plaintiff, if such it was, by having the thief point out the house to which the car was taken to some person who could identify the house as that of the plaintiff, if such it was, and coordinate the testimony of the two by placing such other person on the stand; or perhaps the house could have been properly identified in other ways.
2. A witness for the defendant insurance company testified as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A Child's World, Inc. v. Lane
...See generally Kennemore v. State, 223 Ga. 41, 47(2), 153 S.E.2d 307 (1967); Momon v. State, supra; Rymer v. Fidelity & Guar. Fire Corp., 81 Ga.App. 308(1), 58 S.E.2d 471 (1950). 4. Over appellants' hearsay objection, appellee's mother was allowed to testify regarding a telephone call that s......
-
Bowers v. Fulton County
...may themselves be admitted in evidence (see Bible v. Somers Construction Co., 197 Ga. 761(2), 30 S.E.2d 623; Rymer v. Fidelity & Guaranty Fire Corp., 81 Ga.App. 308, 58 S.E.2d 471; Elder v. Atlanta-Southern Dental College, 183 Ga. 634(4), 189 S.E. 254), yet where, as in the present case, th......
-
Hutcheson v. American Machine & Foundry Co.
...v. State, 165 Ga. 55(3), 139 S.E. 877; Bible v. Somers Construction Co., 197 Ga. 761(2), 30 S.E.2d 623; Rymer v. Fidelity & Guaranty Fire Corp., 81 Ga.App. 308(2), 58 S.E.2d 471; Lewis v. State, 82 Ga.App. 280, 290-291, 60 S.E.2d 663; Crawford v. Roney, 126 Ga. 763, 55 S.E. 499; Payne v. Fr......