Graham v. Fire Insurance

Citations

• 48 S.C. 195
• 26 S.E. 323
• 1897 S.C. LEXIS 86

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence — Insurance.—An insurance policy covered the goods of G., loss, if any, payable to T. It was alleged that T. was true owner, and that G. had a pecuniary interest in it, and was under contract to insure it. Held, that it was competent to prove the contract between G. and T., and such evidence would not contradict the written terms of the policy.</p> <p>2. Ibid. — Ibid..—Where personal property is insured in name of G., loss, if any, payable to T., as his interest may appear, it is competent to show why G. insured property.</p> <p>3. Ibid. — Ibid.—Estopped.—The facts, that after insured property had been burned, the adjusters of all companies carrying insurance assembled at the place, were informed of the true ownership of the property, and then demanded of the owner minute proofs of loss, are admissible, to show estoppel on part of defendant company to deny ownership of property.</p> <p>4. Ibid. — Ibid.—Principad and Agent. — Communications' between insured and his agent may be admitted, if such communications are shown to have been communicated to the insurer.</p> <p>5. Ibid. — Principad and Agent. — Communications to an agent may be shown to bind principal, if the agent had authority to act for principal in this particular.</p> <p>6. Ibid. — Insurance.—The fact-that an insurance company had admitted notice of the ownership of property, may be proved by showing its agent had admitted such fact.</p> <p>7. Nonsuit — Insurance.—Nonsuit is improper where there is testimony going to show that the assured had an insurable interest in destroyed property, even where it is admitted that he was not the owner.</p> <p>8. Ibid. — Ibid.—Estopped.—Where an insurance company issued a policy and accepted the premium, and there is testimony tending to show that at time of issuance of policy it had notice that assured was not true owner, this is sufficient to go to the jury, tending to show that defendant is estopped from claiming that the policy was void from its incep