Smith v. Cal. Ins. Co.
| Citation | 85 Me. 348,27 A. 191 |
| Parties | SMITH v. CALIFORNIA INS. CO. |
| Decision Date | 13 March 1893 |
| Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US) |
(Official.)
Action by Samuel P. Smith against the California Insurance Company on a policy of insurance. Plaintiff had a verdict, and defendant brings exceptions, and moves to set the verdict aside. Motion sustained, and new trial granted.
E. M. Rand, for plaintiff.
E. Stone and R. P. Tapley, for defendant.
The plaintiff recovered a verdict of $1,648.80 upon a Massachusetts standard policy of insurance issued to him on the 6th day of November, 1888, for $1,500, upon property in a detached frame dwelling house situated in the outskirts of the village of Woburn, in the commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The case comes before the court upon motion by the defendant to set aside the verdict, and upon exceptions.
The defense interposed by the pleadings, and relied on at the trial, was an absolute denial of the company's liability to pay any amount, on the ground that the plaintiff had been a party to causing the fire, and had been guilty of fraud, and therefore was not entitled to recover at all. Whatever, therefore, may have been the legal effect of this position, as bearing upon that provision in the policy relating to arbitration in reference to the amount to be recovered in case of loss, and failure of the parties to agree upon the same, (Robinson v. Insurance Co., 17 Me. 131; Wainer v. Insurance Co., 153 Mass. 335, 26 N. E. Rep. 877,) it is unnecessary now to determine, inasmuch as we are satisfied that the motion should be sustained, and the verdict set aside. The contract was made in Massachusetts, with the plaintiff, a citizen of that state at the time.
The evidence, from beginning to end, discloses a most flagrant conspiracy to defraud the defendant company. The plaintiff, while perhaps not so active a participant in the details of this conspiracy as his brother, who is now serving sentence in the Massachusetts penitentiary for this crime, (Com. v. Smith, 151 Mass. 491, 24 N. E. Rep. 677,) or the other party, who has fled his country to escape the law, appears to have been acting in conjunction with them in this fraud.
The evidence, viewed in the light of the circumstances surrounding the whole transaction, so strongly preponderates against the plaintiff upon points vital to the result as to amount to a moral certainty that the jury erred in the conclusion reached by them.
It is practically impossible, within the reasonable limits...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Arbogast
... ... 493; Weinstein ... v. Laughlin, 21 F.2d 740; Gundry v. Ry. Co ... (Cal.) 286 P. 718. The trial court erred in giving ... instruction numbered 12, for the reason that it ... J. 705; Wilde v. Lodge ... Company, 41 P.2d 509. The case of Raymond v. National ... Life Ins. Co., cited by plaintiff in error, is not in point ... Agency can be proven by independent ... stand.' Moulton v. Railway Co., 99 Me. 508, 509, ... 59 A. 1023; Smith v. Ins. Co., 85 Me. 348; 27 A ... 191; McCarthy ... [81 P.2d 893] ... v. Bangor & Aroostock ... ...
-
Natalini v. Northwestern Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
...with a fire. Commonwealth v. Cooper, 264 Mass. 368, 162 N.E. 729; Commonwealth v. Bader, 285 Mass. 574, 189 N.E. 590; Smith v. California Ins. Co., 85 Me. 348, 27 A. 191; Bruff v. Northwestern Mut. Fire Ass'n, 59 125, 109 P. 280, Ann.Cas. 1912A, 1138.But overinsurance, in and of itself, wou......
-
Moulton v. Sanford & C. P. Ry. Co.
...as to amount to a moral certainty that the jury erred in the conclusion reached by them, the verdict should be set aside. Smith v. Ins. Co., 85 Me. 348, 27 Atl. 191. In Cawley v. La Crosse R. It, 101 Wis. 150, 77 N. W. 180, the court say: "If there was anything in plaintiff's evidence, stan......
-
Hall v. Cumberland County Power & Light Co.
...it is overwhelmed by the opposing evidence, a verdict cannot stand." Moulton v. Railway Co., 99 Me. 508, 509, 59 Atl. 1023; Smith v. Ins. Co., 85 Me. 348, 27 Atl. 191; McCarthy v. Bangor & Aroostook R. R., 112 Me. 5, 90 Atl. 490, L. R. A. 1915B, 140; Edgerley v. Thompson, 121 Me. 572, 575, ......