Moore v. North River Insurance

Citations

• 111 Kan. 420
• 207 P. 760
• 1922 Kan. LEXIS 264

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Insueance — Allegation of Agency — No Verified Denial — Agency Admitted. In an action on an insurance policy the petition alleged that the person who took the application was the agent of the insurance company. Held, that the court properly ruled that the failure of the answer to deny the fact under oath amounted to an admission of the agency. (Civ. Code, § 110; Hornick v. U. P; Railroad Co., 85 Kan. 568, 572, 118 Pac. 60.)</p> <p>2. Same — Automobile Policy — Description of Property Insured — Instruction Properly Refused. In an action upon a farm automobile policy insuring a certain Ford roadster, No. 2,973,641, against loss by theft, the principal defense was that the car was not the property of the plaintiff. The defendant’s evidence showed that a car of the same description and make, bearing the same factory number, was purchased from the factory long prior to the issuance of the policy and was then in the possession of the purchaser in New York city. Held, that the number of the car stated in the policy was a mere matter of description; it was the particular car which the defendant insured and not the number; and held further, that the court properly refused to instruct that even if the jury believed from the evidence that plaintiff owned the Ford motor car when the policy was issued, they must find for the defendant unless they believed from the evidence that the car bore,the number stated in the policy.</p> <p>3. Same — Instructions Properly Refused,, In such a case an instruction was properly refused which charged that if the jury believed from the evidence that in 1919 a third person purchased a Ford car of that number and had since been in the continuous possession thereof, it was their duty to find for the defendant.</p>