Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. v. Storer

Sixth Circuit

Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. v. Storer

23 F.2d 921, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3273

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 13, 1928

DocketNo. 4915

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 23 F.2d 921 (Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. v. Storer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. v. Storer, 23 F.2d 921, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3273 (6th Cir. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This was an 'action at law on an insurance policy issued to M. Lewis Brown, and alleged to have been assigned a,nd transferred to tbe plaintiff, George B. Storer. Answer was filed, alleging that under a clause in the poliey it had become void because, of: the sale and transfer of the insured property, a yacht, without the previous consent in writing of the defendant. Plaintiff pleaded, in avoidance of this defense, consent to the sale by the authorized agents of the defend[922]*922ant, as well as other acts performed by the defendant amounting to waiver of the written consent. On the pleadings as thus made up there were issues of fact to be determined. These were submitted to the court under a written waiver of jury. In an opinion filed by the court, certain conclusions as' to. the; facts were stated' (see Fleischmann Construction Co. v. U. S., 270 U. S. 349, 355, 46 S. Ct. 284, 70 L. Ed. 624); but no findings of fact were made or requested.

The pleadings, if supported by evidence, warranted the judgment; and we cannot, in the absence of a finding of facts, inquire into the facts and conclusions of law on which the judgment was based. Law v. United States, 266 U. S. 494, 45 S. Ct. 175, 69 L. Ed. 401; United States v. Gordin (6 C. C. A.) 9 F.(2d) 394; Oyler v. Cleveland, etc., Co. (6 C. C. A.) 16 F.(2d) 455.

The other assignments of error present questions of the admissibility of evidence relating to a policy issued by defendant to plaintiff on the boat in October,. 1924, and to the issuance of other insurance by the defendant prior to and after the loss in question, in which the defendant acted through the agents claimed by plaintiff to have authorized and approved the sale and transfer of the boat. This evidence was clearly admissible, as tending to show the authority of those agents.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This was an 'action at law on an insurance policy issued to M. Lewis Brown, and alleged to have been assigned a,nd transferred to tbe plaintiff, George B. Storer. Answer was filed, alleging that under a clause in the poliey it had become void because, of: the sale and transfer of the insured property, a yacht, without the previous consent in writing of the defendant. Plaintiff pleaded, in avoidance of this defense, consent to the sale by the authorized agents of the defend[922]*922ant, as well as other acts performed by the defendant amounting to waiver of the written consent. On the pleadings as thus made up there were issues of fact to be determined. These were submitted to the court under a written waiver of jury. In an opinion filed by the court, certain conclusions as' to. the; facts were stated' (see Fleischmann Construction Co. v. U. S., 270 U. S. 349, 355, 46 S. Ct. 284, 70 L. Ed. 624); but no findings of fact were made or requested.

The pleadings, if supported by evidence, warranted the judgment; and we cannot, in the absence of a finding of facts, inquire into the facts and conclusions of law on which the judgment was based. Law v. United States, 266 U. S. 494, 45 S. Ct. 175, 69 L. Ed. 401; United States v. Gordin (6 C. C. A.) 9 F.(2d) 394; Oyler v. Cleveland, etc., Co. (6 C. C. A.) 16 F.(2d) 455.

The other assignments of error present questions of the admissibility of evidence relating to a policy issued by defendant to plaintiff on the boat in October,. 1924, and to the issuance of other insurance by the defendant prior to and after the loss in question, in which the defendant acted through the agents claimed by plaintiff to have authorized and approved the sale and transfer of the boat. This evidence was clearly admissible, as tending to show the authority of those agents.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 F.2d 921, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/globe-rutgers-fire-ins-v-storer-ca6-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack