Indiana Live Stock Insurance v. Bogeman

30 N.E. 7, 4 Ind. App. 237, 1892 Ind. App. LEXIS 100
CourtIndiana Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 4, 1892
DocketNo. 447
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 30 N.E. 7 (Indiana Live Stock Insurance v. Bogeman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Indiana Live Stock Insurance v. Bogeman, 30 N.E. 7, 4 Ind. App. 237, 1892 Ind. App. LEXIS 100 (Ind. Ct. App. 1892).

Opinion

Black, J.

The appellant by its policy engaged to insure the appellee against loss by death of his certain stallion, to a specified amount, for the period of one year from the 16th of April, 1890.

The appellee’s complaint upon this policy stated the death of the horse on the 15th of July, 1890. It showed that the appellee was the owner of the horse at the date of the contract of insurance, but it wholly failed to show that he owned it or had any interest in it at the time of its death. Therefore, the complaint lacked a material and necessary averment. Aurora, etc, Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 46 Ind. 315; Home Ins. Co. v. Duke, 75 Ind. 535; Ætna [238]*238Ins. Co. v. Black, 80 Ind. 513; Ætna Ins. Co. v. Kittles, 81 Ind. 96; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Benton, 87 Ind. 132; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Rowe, 117 Ind. 202; Traders Ins. Co. v. Newman, 120 Ind. 554.

Filed Feb. 4, 1892; petition for a rehearing overruled Feb. 20, 1892.

The action of the court in sustaining a demurrer to the second paragraph of answer is assigned as error. As the complaint was insufficient, we must sustain the appellant’s contention that, for this reason, it was error to sustain the demurrer to the answer. Batty v. Fout, 54 Ind. 482; Corporation of Bluffton v. Mathews, 92 Ind. 213.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded, with instructions to sustain to the complaint the demurrer to the second paragraph of answer.

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

Related

Newark Fire Insurance v. Martinsville Harness Co.
128 N.E. 616 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1920)
Milwaukee Fire Insurance v. Todd
67 N.E. 697 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1903)
Vernon Insurance & Trust Co. v. Bank of Toronto
65 N.E. 23 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1902)
Prussian National Insurance v. Peterson
64 N.E. 102 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1902)
Moon v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.
56 N.E. 108 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1900)
Farmers Insurance v. Burris
55 N.E. 773 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1899)
Western Assurance Co. v. McCarty
48 N.E. 265 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1897)
Western Assurance Co. v. Koontz
46 N.E. 95 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1897)
Grace v. Cox
44 N.E. 813 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 N.E. 7, 4 Ind. App. 237, 1892 Ind. App. LEXIS 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/indiana-live-stock-insurance-v-bogeman-indctapp-1892.