Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance v. Cochran

Citations

• 77 Miss. 348

Syllabus

<p>1. IPire Insurance. Application. False statement of ownership.</p> <p>■Where, in a written application for fire insurance, the applicant stated that he was the sole and unconditional owner of the building, when in truth he owned only an undivided onedialf interest therein, the insurance is void, although the co-owner had verbally promised the applicant to convey to him upon payment of a sum of money, and had removed from the property.</p> <p>2. Same. Question of title.</p> <p>Such a misstatement is not within the rule that courts will not, in suits upon fire insurance policies, scrutinize with critical nicety mere questions of title.</p> <p>3. Same. Sincerity. '</p> <p>The sincerity of an applicant who makes a false statement of an essential fact in his application for fire insurance will not relieve from the consequences of such misstatement.</p>