Menk v. Home Insurance

Citations

• 76 Cal. 50
• 18 P. 117
• 1888 Cal. LEXIS 822

Syllabus

<p>Fire Insurance—Application—Occupation op Insured Premises. —An application for a policy of fire insurance stated, with reference to the occupation of the premises, that the first story was occupied by “applicant as a brewery,” and the second story “as a lodging-honse and family residence.” The application further stated that the second story was occupied by a tenant. Held, there was no representation that the applicant personally resided on the premises.</p> <p>Id. —Misstatements bt Agent op Insurer. —Misstatements contained in an application for a policy of fire insurance, which was made out by the agent of the insurer, cannot he taken advantage of for the purpose of defeating the policy, if the agent knew the statements to he false when he made out the application.</p> <p>Id. —Evidence as to Property Destroyed at Fire. —In an action on a policy of fire insurance,- where the defense is made that the plaintiff himself set fire to the premises, evidence is admissible on behalf of the plaintiff that property belonging to him, other than that covered by the policy, was destroyed by the-fire.</p> <p>Id.—Appidavit in Proop op Loss—Immaterial Error.—In such an action, the admission in evidence of an affidavit made by the plaintiff soon after the fire, in proof of the loss, is an immaterial error, when the plaintiff testifies to the same facts as those stated in the affidavit, and the court expressly limits the effect of the paper as evidence to showing that the affidavit had been made.</p> <p>Finding—Insuppioienoy op Evidence—New Trial. —The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain afinding.will not be considered on appeal, unless the statement on motion for a new trial contains a specification of the particulars wherein the evidence is claimed to be insufficient.</p>