Imperial Fire Insurance v. Shimer

Citations

• 96 Ill. 580
• 1880 Ill. LEXIS 73

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice—waiving replication by going to trial. In a proceeding by garnishment., where the supposed debtor answers denying an indebtedness, whether a replication be necessary or not, if the parties make no objection in that regard, but. treat the issue as properly made and proceed with the trial to verdict, it can not afterward be objected that there was no replication.</p> <p>2. Same—limiting effect of testimony. Although testimony introduced upon the trial of a cause may be competent, for some purposes but not for others, it is not. the duty of the court, unless requested so to do, to direct the jury as to the particular purpose for which the evidence is competent, and it is no ground of objection that such direction was omitted, unless it appears the court was requested so to limit the application of the testimony and refused.</p> <p>3. Evidence—in proceeding by garnishment. Where an insurance company is summoned to answer as a garnishee, on the allegation that the company is liable to the judgment debtor upon a policy of insurance, and the company denies such liability, on a trial of this issue it is competent for the garnishee-in g creditor to give in evidence the affidavits made in proof of loss, as tending to show a compliance with the provisions of the policy by the assured.</p> <p>4. Insurance—use of properly variant from statement in application. The fact that property insured was being used at the time of the loss in a manner and for a purpose variant from that stated by the assured in his application for the policy, will not. constitute a bar to an action on the policy, if the agent of the company when receiving the application and granting the policy, had full knowledge of the manner and purposes for which the property was then being used, and there was no change in that respect in the mode or purposes of the use.</p>