Mix v. Royal Insurance

Citations

• 169 Pa. 639
• 32 A. 460
• 1895 Pa. LEXIS 1142

Syllabus

<p>Insurance — Fire insurance — •Waiver.</p> <p>Although a policy of insurance contains a stipulation that nothing less than a written agreement indorsed on the policy will suffice to establish a waiver, yet it is admissible to show by parol testimony a waiver by acts in pais: McFarland v. The Ins. Co., 134 Fa. 590; Gould v. Ins. Co., 134 Fa. 570.</p> <p>Where two witnesses swear positively to the declarations of an insurance agent to the assured that it was not necessary to make out proofs of loss, there is sufficient evidence of waiver to submit to the jury, although the testimony of the two witnesses is contradicted by the agent.</p> <p>jDeed — Spoliation of deed — Reformation—Evidence.</p> <p>Where words are added to a deed after execution and delivery, the parties to the deed, or either of them, may prove the fact of spoliation without their knowledge or consent, and if the evidence is sufficient to establish the fact, the deed is the same as if the spoliation had never been created.</p> <p>In an action upon a policy of fire insurance brought by a married woman, the insurance company claimed that plaintiff did not own the property in her own right, but held it in trust for her husband. The plaintiff and two witnesses testified that after the deed to plaintiff had been executed and delivered, the words “in trust for Warren Mix” were added without the knowledge or consent of grantor or grantee. Warren Mix was plaintiff’s husband, and was dead at the time of the trial. Held, that the evidence as to the spoliation of the deed was ample to submit to the jury. Held, also, that plaintiff was a competent witness, as her husband had no interest whatever in the policy sued upon.</p>