Home Insurance v. Scales

Citations

• 71 Miss. 975

Syllabus

<p>1. Supreme Court. Errors of pleading. Right-result.</p> <p>While this court will review rulings on the pleadings which determine the controversy, or some feature thereof, it will not pass seriatim upon such rulings when it appears that a trial was finally had on the real grounds of controversy, and every thing involved in the case was investigated.</p> <p>2.Fire Insurance. Vacancy of building; what constitutes.</p> <p>When, just before the expiration of their term, tenants of insured abandon a building as a store, leaving therein only a small quantity of meat and a few empty barrels and boxes, the meat being sold and removed before the term ends, the building becomes “vacant and unoccupied” within the meaning- of a fire insurance policy thereon providing that it shall be void if the building “be or become vacant or unoccupied, and so remain for ten days; ” and this, although thereafter, and until a loss occurs, the tenants retain the key at the request of insured, and occasionally make sales of the boxes or barrels.</p> <p>3.Same. Preventing forfeiture. Euty of company.</p> <p>An insurance company is under 110 duty to prevent the forfeiture of a policy by the act of the insured. Where, by removal of a tenant, a building becomes vacant in violation of a policy thereon, though the agent of the company knows it, he is not bound to notify the insured.</p> <p>4.Same. Forfeiture. Reliance on agent. Estoppel.</p> <p>The fact that the local agent had promised the owner, who lived at another place, to look after the insurance, and had done so for several years, and had previously issued a vacancy permit, and, of his own motion, would have issued another, but deemed it unnecessary, will not estop the company from availing of a forfeiture, where the building remains vacant for ten days after the permit, and is burned, the agent having done nothing to mislead the insured after the vacancy.</p>