Chapman v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
This text of 104 So. 517 (Chapman v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The pleadings in this suit on a policy of fire insurance were in short by consent, with leave to give in evidence matters which might be specially pleaded. The trial was upon an agreed statement of facts, by the court, without a jury, and judgment was for defendant.
The question of waiver of default in payment of premium note (Insurance Co. v. Williams, 200 Ala. 681, 77 So. 159), or election (Galliher v. State Mutual Life Ins. Co., 150 Ala. 549, 43 So. 833, 124 Am. St. Rep. 83; Rose v. Citizens’ Ins. Co., 210 Ala. 72, 97 So. 81), cannot be presented by incorporating in the record proper the agreed statement of facts. The ruling of the trial court and the' rendition of judgment in favor of defendant can only be presented under the facts to this court by bill of exceptions. Code 1923, §§ 9498, 9502; White v. Roe, 151 Ala. 287, 44 So. 211; Western U. T. Co. v. Garthright, 151 Ala. 413, 44 So. 212; Williams v. Woodward Iron Co., 106 Ala. 254, 17 So. 517; Stephenson v. Allison, 165 Ala. 238, 51 So. 622, 138 Am. St. Rep. 26; Clark v. McCrary, 80 Ala. 110; Southern Express Co. v. Black, 54 Ala. 177. An agreement of counsel cannot operate as a bill of exceptions.
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
104 So. 517, 213 Ala. 255, 1925 Ala. LEXIS 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapman-v-hartford-fire-ins-co-ala-1925.