Mississippi Fire Ass'n v. Stein

Citations

• 88 Miss. 499
• 41 So. 66

Syllabus

<p>1. Insurance. Action on policy. Stoclcholder.</p> <p>It is no defense to a suit upon a fire insurance policy that the plaintiff is a stockholder in the incorporated defendant company.</p> <p>2. Same. Vacancy permits.</p> <p>Where a fire insurance agent had authority and was in the habit of issuing vacancy permits, free of costs, upon the verbal application of policy holders, and the plaintiff, being about to set out upon a journey, made request for a thirty-days permit, directing the agent, who had access to his policy, to attach the same thereto, and the agent agreed to do so, but by inadvertance neglected it and the house was destroyed during the thirty days, the company cannot escape liability because the house was vacant at the time of the fire.</p> <p>3. Same. Rquity jurisdiction. Reformation of policy. Constitution 1890, sec. 147.</p> <p>In such ease, the chancery court' having reformed the policy by writing the vacancy permit into it, the supreme court will'affirm the decrees without reference to whether the cause was of equity or common law jurisdiction, since constitution 1890, see. 147 forbids reversals for errors as between such jurisdictions.</p>