Green v. Lancashire Insurance

69 Mo. App. 429, 1897 Mo. App. LEXIS 71
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 23, 1897
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 69 Mo. App. 429 (Green v. Lancashire Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Green v. Lancashire Insurance, 69 Mo. App. 429, 1897 Mo. App. LEXIS 71 (Mo. Ct. App. 1897).

Opinion

Biggs, J.

The defendant insured the household goods of the plaintiff in the sum of $600. All of the property was burned except a sewing machine. The petition is in the usual form, except that it fails to [430]*430allege the value of the goods. The answer is a general denial. There was a verdict for the plaintiff for $560.10 and judgment was entered thereon. The defendant appeals and assigns for error the insufficiency of the petition and evidence, and that the instruction which the court gave at the instance of the plaintiff is erroneous.

Fire insurance: sufficiency of petition. At the commencement of the trial the defendant objected to the introduction of any evidence, on the ground that the petition failed to state a cause of action. The objection should have been sust-ained. The petition failed to state the value of the goods, and in that respect it was fatally defective. This was our decision in Story v. Ins. Co., 61 Mo. App. 534.

Proof of value of property: nonsuit. At the close of the evidence the defendant asked an instruction of nonsuit, which was refused. It ought to have been given. The plaintiff failed to prove the value of the goods. If it was necessary to allege their value, it was obligatory on the plaintiff to prove it. The ruling of the court on this question is explained by the plaintiff’s instruction, which treated the case as coming under the “valued policy law,” sections 5897, 5898, Revised Statutes, 1889. The latter clause of section 5898 expressly states that the provisions of the two sections “shall apply only to real property insured.”

Our conclusion is that all of the assignments of error are well taken, and that the judgment of the circuit court must be reversed and the cause remanded.

All the judges concur.

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

Related

Stahlberg v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
568 S.W.2d 79 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1978)
Duckworth v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
452 S.W.2d 280 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1970)
Prince & Co. v. St. Louis Cotton Compress Co.
86 S.W. 873 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1905)
Howerton v. Iowa State Insurance
80 S.W. 27 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1904)
Jones v. Philadelphia Underwriters
78 Mo. App. 296 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1899)
Wright & Son v. Bankers' & Merchants' Town Mutual Fire Insurance
73 Mo. App. 365 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1898)
Sappington v. St. Joseph Mutual Fire Insurance
72 Mo. App. 74 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
69 Mo. App. 429, 1897 Mo. App. LEXIS 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-lancashire-insurance-moctapp-1897.