The Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Webster
| Decision Date | 30 September 1873 |
| Citation | 69 Ill. 392,1873 WL 8477 |
| Parties | THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANYv.WILLIAM H. WEBSTER. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Warren county; the Hon. ARTHUR A. SMITH, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by William H. Webster against the Hartford Fire Insurance Company, upon a policy of insurance. The opinion states the facts of the case.
Mr. JOHN J. GLENN, for the appellant.
The policy upon which this suit is brought contains this, among other conditions:
“If the premises hereby insured become vacated, by the removal of the owner or occupant, for a period of more than thirty days, without immediate notice to the company and consent indorsed hereon, * * * * * * then and in every such case this policy shall be void.”
The evidence shows that the property insured, a dwelling house, was vacated on the 12th day of January, and thereafter remained unoccupied until it was destroyed by fire, on the 13th day of the ensuing February. There is no evidence that notice of this fact was given to the company, or that its consent was indorsed on the policy. The plaintiff, however, testified that the reason he did not notify the company that the premises were vacant and unoccupied was, because the agent of the company told him at the time the insurance was made, that it was not necessary to give notice if the house became vacant. The agent of the company swears that what he told the plaintiff was, that if the house was not vacant for more than thirty days, it was not necessary to give notice.
The court, at the instance of the plaintiff, instructed the jury upon this point that, “the neglect of Webster to give notice of the vacancy of the premises for more than thirty days, would not vitiate or avoid the policy, if the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant, or its agent, waived such notice at the time the policy was issued, or at any other time before the loss.”
This instruction is clearly erroneous and should not have been given. No principle of law is better settled than that the evidence of a contract can not exist partly in writing and partly in parol. Whatever may have been said in reference to the contract between the parties, at the time of or prior to its execution, after it was reduced to writing parol evidence was inadmissible to enlarge, modify, or contradict its terms as expressed in the written...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Home Fire Insurance Company of Omaha v. Hammang Brothers & Company
... ... proofs must be furnished. ( German Ins. Co. v ... Fairbank, 32 Neb. 757.) ... The ... defendants in error never ... J. Law], 110; Protection Ins ... Co. v. Pherson, 5 Ind. 417; Noonan v. Hartford Fire ... Ins. Co., 21 Mo. 81; Cornell v. Hope Ins. Co., 3 ... Martin n. s. [La.], 223; Kerr ... 324; Loehner v. Home ... Mutual Ins. Co., 17 Mo. 248; Hartford Fire Ins. Co ... v. Webster, 69 Ill. 392; Dewees v. Manhattan Ins ... Co., 6 Vroom [N. J.], 366; Winneshiek Ins. Co. v ... ...
-
Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. v. McFarlane
...a waiver of a condition after it has become binding on the parties." To the same effect, with reference to a vacancy, is Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Webster, 69 Ill. 392; Rogers v. Phenix Ins. Co., 121 Ind. 570, 23 N. E. 498. There are authorities to the contrary, but our Supreme Court in the......
-
Smith v. Continental Ins. Co.
...person taking the application until after the fire; and it was upon that express ground that the case was distinguished from Insurance Co. v. Webster, 69 Ill. 392. The latter case is directly in point here. The court "The evidence shows that the property insured, a dwelling-house, was vacat......
-
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Davenport
... ... condition against leaving the premises vacant, Ashworth v ... Builders Ins. Co. 112 Mass. 422; Keith v. Quincy Mut. F. I ... Co. 10 Allen 228; and evidence cannot be given as to what the ... local agent said before the policy was issued, Hartford F. I ... Co. v. Webster 69 Ill. 392; he could not waive the condition ... either before or after issuing the policy, Security Ins. Co ... v. Fay 22 Mich. 471; Amer. Ins. Co. v. Padfield 78 Ill. 167; ... Simonton v. Liverpool Ins. Co. 51 Ga. 76 ... Richards ... & Mills for defendants in error, supported the ... ...