Jones v. Pacific Fire Insurance

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Jones v. Pacific Fire Insurance

119 S.E. 922, 31 Ga. App. 128, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 779

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 14, 1923

Docket14350, 14351

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 119 S.E. 922 (Jones v. Pacific Fire Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Pacific Fire Insurance, 119 S.E. 922, 31 Ga. App. 128, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 779 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Blcodworth, J.

This court cannot say that the judge abused his discretion in passing the following order: “The above case having come on for hearing before the court, after evidence introduced and argument of counsel, the court finds and adjudges that the policy of insurance is the law of the case as to the parties thereto; and, this policy expressly providing that proofs of loss shall be made in a certain way therein provided, and further providing that no agent or officer of the company has authority to waive any of the conditions of the contract unless done in writing, and no such waiver having been made, and it further appearing that the plaintiff failed to make out his case as laid, it is ordered and adjudged that the motion to reinstate be and is hereby overruled and denied.” See Bailey v. First Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 18 Ga. App. 213 (1 a, 1 b) (89 S. E. 80); Smith v. Western Assurance Co., 18 Ga. App. 461 (89 S. E. 533); Williams v. Atlas Assurance Co., 22 Ga. App. 661 (97 S. E. 91); Folds v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 28 Ga. App. 323 (110 S. E. 925).

Judgment on main bill of exceptions affirmed; cross-bill dismissed.

Broyles, C. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

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

Blcodworth, J.

This court cannot say that the judge abused his discretion in passing the following order: “The above case having come on for hearing before the court, after evidence introduced and argument of counsel, the court finds and adjudges that the policy of insurance is the law of the case as to the parties thereto; and, this policy expressly providing that proofs of loss shall be made in a certain way therein provided, and further providing that no agent or officer of the company has authority to waive any of the conditions of the contract unless done in writing, and no such waiver having been made, and it further appearing that the plaintiff failed to make out his case as laid, it is ordered and adjudged that the motion to reinstate be and is hereby overruled and denied.” See Bailey v. First Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 18 Ga. App. 213 (1 a, 1 b) (89 S. E. 80); Smith v. Western Assurance Co., 18 Ga. App. 461 (89 S. E. 533); Williams v. Atlas Assurance Co., 22 Ga. App. 661 (97 S. E. 91); Folds v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 28 Ga. App. 323 (110 S. E. 925).

Judgment on main bill of exceptions affirmed; cross-bill dismissed.

Broyles, C. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 S.E. 922, 31 Ga. App. 128, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-pacific-fire-insurance-gactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack