Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Willock

Decision Date03 October 1894
Citation29 S.W. 218
PartiesSTANDARD FIRE INS. CO. OF KANSAS CITY v. WILLOCK.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Action by J. M. Willock against the Standard Fire Insurance Company, of Kansas City, Mo. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Leake, Sheppard & Miller and K. R. Craig, for appellant. Throckmorton & Garnett, for appellee.

Conclusions of Fact.

RAINEY, J.

The conclusions of fact of the court below are found to be correct, and are adopted as the conclusions of this court.

Conclusions of Law.

The clause in the policy, known as the "Iron-safe clause," is a warranty, binding on appellee, and a failure to have complied with it would have defeated appellee's claim. Kelley-Goodfellow Shoe Co. v. Liberty Ins. Co. (decided by this court Sept. 26, 1894) 28 S. W. 1027. The effect of the findings of the court below was that appellee had complied with the provisions of the clause, and the effect of all the assignments of error is an attack upon such finding. While we might have reached a different conclusion from that reached by the trial court, had we tried the case originally, yet there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict; and under the well-established rule of law, as enunciated by our supreme court in many cases, that a judgment of a lower court, when attacked for want of sufficient evidence, will not be reversed, where there is testimony to support it, we do not feel authorized to disturb it. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Additional Conclusions of Fact.

(Nov. 14, 1894.)

At the request of plaintiff in error, we find the following additional conclusions of fact. The following statement, taken from brief of plaintiff in error, shows the testimony of plaintiff below as to, and his exemplification of, his system of bookkeeping, and the manner in which a record of his business was kept, which statement we find to be correct, to wit:

Plaintiff testified on cross-examination: "The way I kept account of my cash sales was by counting the cash in the drawer every night, and entering it on the blotter as the cash sales of the day. From the blotter it was copied into the cash book. I also entered on the blotter the credit sales, giving the name of the purchaser, the articles purchased, and the price. The credit sales were copied from the blotter into the ledger, in the individual accounts against the parties. My merchandise account consisted of the amount of any bill I purchased from the merchants, under the head of `Merchandise,' without giving the items of the goods purchased; and then, when I paid him in money, that was entered as a credit. I kept a separate account with each firm from whom I purchased goods. This constituted what I called my `Merchandise Account.'" Witness here made samples of entries made in his cash and merchandise book, as follows:

                            Merchandise Account
                             Meyer Bros. & Co
                June 1. By mdse...................... $50 00
                 "  15. To cash................... $50 00
                             Cash Account (P. 39)
                        To cash............... $10 00
                        By cash....................... $5 00
                

"When I collected in any money on accounts or notes due, I placed this money in the cash drawer, also. If I had the merchandise account, and the book containing the inventory. I could not take them, in connection with the other books that I have, and tell what goods were in the store. I did not use any of these that I have, in making out the itemized statement attached to the amended petition, for the reason that they could be of no service to me. When I paid out any money, I entered it as a credit on cash account. If I had my merchandise book and invoice book, I could have made out the amount of goods that I had on hand, but could not, with all the books I kept and had, have made out an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State ex inf. Mallett ex rel. Womack v. City of Joplin
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 12 Junio 1933
    ... ... 168, 200 S.W. 101; State ex inf. v. Standard Oil Co., 218 Mo ... 345, 116 S.W. 902. (2) While the exercise of ...           [332 ... Mo. 1200] "There are no fire hydrants and no fire ... protection. The Joplin fire department is called ... ...
  • State ex Inf. Mallett v. Joplin
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 12 Junio 1933
    ... ... v. Peoples Ice Co., 246 Mo. 168, 200 S.W. 101; State ex inf. v. Standard Oil Co., 218 Mo. 345, 116 S.W. 902. (2) While the exercise of delegated ...         "There are no fire hydrants and no fire protection. The Joplin fire department is called in ... ...
  • Aetna Ins. Co. v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 14 Febrero 1907
    ... ...          What is ... commonly known as the "iron-safe clause" in a ... policy of fire insurance, requiring the insured to "keep ... a set of books which shall clearly and plainly ... manner, from the nature and objects of the parties." In ... Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Willock (Tex. Civ. App.) ... 29 S.W. 218, it was said that there was "a ... ...
  • Security Nat. Fire Ins. Co. v. Schott Drug Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 4 Febrero 1937
    ...of the insured to itemize the goods added to its stock is no breach of the iron-safe warranty clause. Also see Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Willock (Tex. Civ.App.) 29 S.W. 218, 219, where insured's record of purchases was shown by entries in merchandise account similar to those of appellee, an......
  • 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