Blake Opera House Co. v. Home Insurance Co.

41 N.W. 968, 73 Wis. 667, 1889 Wisc. LEXIS 196
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 12, 1889
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 41 N.W. 968 (Blake Opera House Co. v. Home Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Blake Opera House Co. v. Home Insurance Co., 41 N.W. 968, 73 Wis. 667, 1889 Wisc. LEXIS 196 (Wis. 1889).

Opinion

Cassoday, J.

It was certainly competent for the parties to make the contract of insurance in the form it was executed. This is, in effect, conceded. Undoubtedly, it would have been competent for the defendant to have insured BlaJce's interest in the company as a stockholder by a policy issued directly to him, if such had been the contract. [670]*670It is claimed that such was in fact the contract made, but that by reason of a mistake in writing the policy it was issued to the company and insured its property against loss by fire, with the “ loss, if any, by request of the assured, payable to L. S. Blake” aforesaid. Until reformed, the policy as drawn was certainly conclusive upon all the parties that the contract was with the plaintiff company and insured its property against loss by fire. Gillett v. Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co., ante, p. 203. The learned counsel for the defendant concedes such to have been the presumption until overborne by the testimony. It is, moreover, conceded that such proofs, to overcome such written evidence, “must be entirely plain and convincing beyond reasonable controversy, otherwise, the writing will be held to express correctly the intention of the parties.” This reduces the whole question involved to one of fact, to be determined from the evidence. After a very careful reading of the printed case we are unable to hold that there is any such clear preponderance of evidence of mistake as would authorize us to disturb the findings; on the contrary, we are forced to the conclusion that the findings are supported by the evidence. A discussion of the facts would be of no benefit to any one.

By the Court.— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

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

Related

Hoeft v. Kuhnz
252 N.W. 589 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1934)
Garage Equipment Manufacturing Co. v. Danielson
144 N.W. 284 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1914)
Grant Marble Co. v. Abbot
124 N.W. 264 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1910)
Dalton v. Milwaukee Mechanics' Insurance
102 N.W. 120 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1905)
Kropp v. Kropp
72 N.W. 381 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1897)
Home Fire Insurance v. Wood
69 N.W. 941 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1897)
Trustees of St. Clara Female Academy v. Delaware Insurance
66 N.W. 1140 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1896)
Carberry v. German Insurance Co.
56 N.W. 920 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 N.W. 968, 73 Wis. 667, 1889 Wisc. LEXIS 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blake-opera-house-co-v-home-insurance-co-wis-1889.