Stephens v. Capital Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 25 January 1893 |
| Parties | PATRICK STEPHENS, Appellee, v. CAPITAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Union District Court.--HON. H. M. TOWNER, Judge.
THIS is an action in equity, by which the plaintiff demands that the defendant be decreed to issue and deliver to the plaintiff a fire insurance policy in pursuance of an alleged agreement for insurance upon certain buildings and property. It is averred in the petition that after the right to a policy had accrued to the plaintiff the property was destroyed by fire and judgment is demanded for the amount of the loss. There was a judgment and decree for the plaintiff and the defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Read & Read, for appellant.
McDill & Sullivans, for appellee.
The defendant is a fire insurance company. Its principal place of business is in the city of Des Moines. One Stalcup was its local agent at Afton, Union county. The plaintiff is the owner of a farm of sixty acres, upon which he resides. On the first day of March, 1890, Stalcup filled up an application for insurance to the defendant company for the plaintiff upon the plaintiff's buildings and personal property. Stalcup was a soliciting agent, having power to receive applications and forward them to the company, but did not have power to issue policies, or to bind the company by contracting with the assured. The application was forwarded by Stalcup to Des Moines and was received by the defendant on the tenth day of March, 1890. A policy was issued and sent to Stalcup on the thirteenth day of said month. Part of the insured property was destroyed by fire on the sixteenth of said month. The plaintiff did not call upon said Stalcup for the policy until after the fire, and Stalcup did not deliver the policy to him. The evidence tends to show that the policy was returned to the company before the plaintiff called on Stalcup for it. If this were all there is of the case,--that is, if the policy was issued upon the application as made by the plaintiff,--it may be that the contract was complete, and that the policy was in the hands of Stalcup for the plaintiff. But we do not determine that question.
The defendant claims that the application was not accepted by it as it was written, but that it was materially altered by the defendant, so as to conform to the usual rules of the defendant in making contracts of insurance; and that it was not a completed contract, because the plaintiff had not accepted the policy which was sent to Stalcup and which was not in accord with the application. The application as written and sent to the defendant appeared to request insurance "against loss or damage to the amount of one thousand, five hundred and forty dollars, fire and lightning and seven hundred and fifty dollars on cyclone and wind storms." The situation and amount of property to be insured was expressed in the application, as follows "On horses, mules, colts on premises, and against lightning on or off premises, not to exceed $ 150 on each $ 200; on cattle on premises, against lightning on or off premises, not to exceed $ 50 on each $ 150; on board barn frame, tornado, $ 100; on wagons, carriages, buggies, harness in farm buildings on premises, $ 40; on grain, $ 50; on hay, $ 50; on one-story frame dwelling house, $ 650; on household furniture, beds and bedding, wearing apparel, provisions, sewing machine, printed books, pictures, picture frames, piano or organ, $ 300." The aggregate of the amount for which insurance is asked in the application is one thousand, five hundred and forty dollars. That amount was intended to...
To continue reading
Request your trial