Hartford Fire Insurance v. Farrish

Citations

• 73 Ill. 166

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice—time to object to ra/riance. It is too late to raise the objection, for the first time, in the Supreme Court, that evidence offered in the court helow was not properly admitted under the averments in the declaration.</p> <p>2. Insurance—parol contract of, binding. Where there is a contract of insurance, fairly entered into, upon a good consideration, between parties competent to contract, it is binding, although there may be no written policy executed.</p> <p>3. Same—agents exceeding authority. The fact that an insurance agent has instructions from his principal to take only a limited amount of insurance in a specified place, can not affect the rights of a party insured, unless he had notice of such fact.</p> <p>4. Same—loss in another building. Where goods are insured in one building, and are destroyed while in another building, it seems there can be no recovery for the loss.</p> <p>5. Evidence—custom of other insmanee companies. In an action against an insurance company, to recover for the loss of goods while in a warehouse, testimony in regard to the custom of other insurance companies, in writing policies on goods in the warehouse, is not admissible.</p>