St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Johnson

Decision Date05 November 1953
Docket Number6 Div. 481
Citation259 Ala. 627,67 So.2d 896
CourtAlabama Supreme Court
PartiesST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. CO. v. JOHNSON et al.

Marvin Williams, Jr., and Davies & Williams, Birmingham, for appellant.

Rankin Fite, Hamilton, and Jos. S. Mead, Birmingham, for Louisville Fire & Marine Ins. Co., amici curiae.

MERRILL, Justice.

The purpose of this proceeding is to procure a declaratory judgment or decree as to whether the St. Paul Company or the Louisville Company, or both, is liable to pay a loss sustained by W. O. Johnson.

This is the third appeal in this cause. We affirmed the decree overruling the demurrer in Louisville Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 252 Ala. 532, 41 So.2d 585. A trial on the merits before the circuit court in equity without a jury resulted in a decree holding each company liable and prorating the loss equally between them. That decree was appealed from in St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 256 Ala. 690, 57 So.2d 80, and we reversed on the ground that an affidavit was improperly admitted in evidence. The case was tried again the decree of the circuit court was the same as in the previous trial. The Louisville Company accepted the decision and does not appeal, the cause coming here this time at the instance of the St. Paul Company.

Appellant argues strenuously its assignment of error 18 that the court erred in its final decree in holding that the policy of the St. Paul Company was in force and effect at the time of the loss. This was appellant's assignment of error 5 on the previous appeal.

The contentions of the parties and parts of the evidence are stated in the prior reports of this cause and will not be here repeated. It is sufficient to say that the undisputed testimony of the adjuster, Mr. Stickles, the agent for the St. Paul Company, Mrs. Era Walker, the uncontested entries on and concerning the policy made by the agent and the testimony of W. O. Johnson, made a question of fact for the court. Since the cause was tried before the court without a jury, we apply the rule that where the testimony was taken in part ore tenus and part by deposition, the finding of the trial court thereon has the weight of a jury verdict and will not be disturbed unless plainly and palpably wrong, and contrary to the great weight of the evidence. Gardiner v. Willis, 258 Ala. 647, 64 So.2d 609; Wiegand v. Alabama Power Co., 220 Ala. 620, 127 So. 206.

Assignment of error 13 is directed to the trial court's action in admitting in evidence part of a statement or affidavit of W. O. Johnson. The admission of this affidavit caused the case to be reversed before, 256 Ala. 690, 57 So.2d 80. That part of the affidavit admitted was:

'I sent a statement to the company after the fire in which I stated that to my knowledge the policy was cancelled. I did think at the time it was cancelled, but since that time I have talked with Mrs. Era Walker and she made me remember the conversation I had with her when I told her to hold the policy until I saw them further about it.'

The affidavit was made in April 1948 following the fire on January 24, 1948, and the trial was had on May 8, 1952. Prior to the admission in evidence of this part of the affidavit, Johnson testified that the affidavit...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Casey v. Krump
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • September 15, 1955
    ...wrong and contrary to the great weight of the evidence. Gardiner v. Willis, 258 Ala. 647, 64 So.2d 609; St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 259 Ala. 627, 67 So.2d 896; Ray v. Ray, 245 Ala. 591, 18 So.2d The decree of the lower court is due to be affirmed. Affirmed. LIVINGSTON, C. J.......
  • Hall v. Polk
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • September 29, 1978
    ...v. Moore, 295 Ala. 31, 322 So.2d 682 (1975); Kendall v. Kendall, 268 Ala. 383, 106 So.2d 653 (1958); St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 259 Ala. 627, 67 So.2d 896 (1953). In answer to Hall's contention that the decision is against the great weight of the evidence, our examination o......
  • Jackson v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • February 7, 2020
    ...recorded’ exception unless the witness manifested ‘no present recollection’ of the matter. See St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 259 Ala. 627, 67 So. 2d 896 (1953). Rule 803(5) requires only that the witness manifest an ‘insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify f......
  • Hall v. Mazzone
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 21, 1986
    ...36, 322 So.2d 682, 686 (1975); Blackwell v. Sewall, 280 Ala. 359, 367, 194 So.2d 519, 526-27 (1967); St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 259 Ala. 627, 628, 67 So.2d 896, 897 (1953); Taylor v. Burgett, 207 Ala. 54, 56, 91 So. 786, 787-88 In this case, the trial court took evidence on......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT