Maryland Casualty Co. v. Laurel Oil & Fertilizer Co.

Citations

• 116 Miss. 283
• 76 So. 875

Syllabus

<p>1. Insurance. Actions. Question for jury. Peremptory instruction.</p> <p>In an action by an employer against a casualty company on -it's policy to indemnify such employer for all loss of money, etc., constituting larceny or embezzlement by an employee, it was improper for the court to grant, a peremptory instruction for the employer, where the employee gave testimony which if true showed that the shortage in his accounts did not come about by any act of larceny or embezzlement on his part.</p> <p>2. Same.</p> <p>In such case it was improper for the court to exclude testimony offered by the employee showing that he had not embezzled or stolen any of his employer’s money or property.</p> <p>3. Indemnity Insurance. Requirement that insured prosecute.</p> <p>It is a reasonable contract where one party is insuring against acts constituting larceny or embezzlement to stipulate that the assured shall give information and institute prosecution, when required to do so, of all offenses on the part of the employee insured against.</p> <p>4. Pleading. Withdrawal of plea. Abandonment of defense.</p> <p>Where in- an action by a fertilizer company against a casualty company on its policy to indemnify for loss sustained by larceny or embezzlement of employees, the casualty company filed a plea setting up that it was unlawful for the fertilizer company to operate a gin after the passage of chapter 162, Laws 1914, hut withdrew the plea though it moved to strike out the evidence and grant it a peremptory instruction, basing the statute as a ground therefor. In such case the court had a right to treat the defense as having been abandoned with the withdrawal of the plea.</p>