Anderson v. Natl. Fire Ins. Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Anderson v. Natl. Fire Ins. Co.

154 N.E. 51, 22 Ohio App. 209, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 219, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 557

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 8, 1926

Docket1634

StatusPublished

This text of 154 N.E. 51 (Anderson v. Natl. Fire Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. Natl. Fire Ins. Co., 154 N.E. 51, 22 Ohio App. 209, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 219, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 557 (Ohio Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

YOUNG, J.

The National Fire Insurance Co. issued a policy to cover fire loss on an auto trailer owned by Charles Anderson and William Leidner, partners, said truck being used in the furtherance of their business. While the policy was in force the trailer was destroyed by fire and Leidner received injuries which resulted in his death.

This action was brought in the Lucas Common Pleas by Leidner’s administratrix and the surviving partner, Anderson, to recover on the policy. A petition was also filed by the receiver of the partnership asking leave to be joined as party plaintiff also.

The case was heard and the Insurance Co. objected to the introduction of evidence on the grounds that, the petition did not constitute a cause of action and that Anderson was without authority and capacity to maintain an action against it.

Thereupon Anderson asked the court to allow evidence to be submitted to bring before the court, the receiver, and to join him in the action, on the ground that it was necessary to have all the parties before the court, which request the court refused. The petition of Anderson was dismissed. Error was prosecuted and the Court of Appeals held:

1. It appears that Anderson did not take over the assets of the partnership and this action was commenced before a receiver was appointed.

2. Although Anderson has an interest in the property in question, such rights are governed by statute and the receiver is the only one who can maintain such an action.

*220 Attorneys — C. A. Thatcher, C. A. Meek, for Anderson; Geo. H. Lewis, Wm. H. McLellan, for Insurance Co.; all of Toledo.

3. If the court below had granted the motion it would have resulted in a misjoinder of parties.

4. “An action shall be brought in the name of the real party at interest, and the court did not err in overruling the motion of Anderson.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI