Manhattan Fire Insurance v. Fowler & Co.

76 Ala. 372
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedDecember 15, 1884
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 76 Ala. 372 (Manhattan Fire Insurance v. Fowler & 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.

Bluebook
Manhattan Fire Insurance v. Fowler & Co., 76 Ala. 372 (Ala. 1884).

Opinion

SOMERYILLE, J

— The judgment in this canse must be reversed. It is a judgment by default against a defendant corporation, and there is no sufficient proof of the fact that the person upon whom the summons and complaint were served was an agent, or occupied such other relation towards the defendant as to justify service upon him under the statute. The mere return of the sheriff is insufficient. The record must show that the fact vt&s proved to the satisfaction of the court. Southern Express Co. v. Carroll, 42 Ala. 437 ; Oxford Ins. Co. v. Spradley, Ib. 24 ; Code, 1876, §§ 234-35.

The action is, furthermore, one in which no judgment final by default could properly have been rendered, without the intervention of a jury. A writ of inquiry was necessary to ascertain the value of the property which is alleged to have been destroyed by fire and insured against loss by the terms of the policy of insurance. The statute authorizes a judgment by default, without the intervention of a jury, only in “ actions fonnded on any instrument of writing ascertaining the plaintiffs’ demand.” — Code, 1876, §3032. The amount of plaintiffs’loss could not be known, without the aid of extrinsic evidence. It was not ascertained by the policy itself.— Warrick v. Banks, 67 Ala. 252 ; Porter v. Burleson, 38 Ala. 343 ; Connolly v. Ala. & Tenn. R. R. Co., 29 Ala. 373 ; 2 Brick. Dig. p. 135, §§ 61, et seq.

Reversed -and remanded.

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

Related

Palatine Ins. Co. v. Hill
121 So. 412 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1929)
Farmers' State Bank v. Inman
94 So. 105 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)
Garnett v. Scott
92 So. 408 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)
Prudential Casualty Co. v. Kerr
80 So. 97 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1918)
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Bannister
79 So. 253 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1918)
Florida Nursery & Trading Co. v. Watson
77 So. 391 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1917)
American Bonding Co. v. New York & Mexican Whiting Co.
66 So. 847 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1914)
Pace v. Hannon
50 So. 908 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1909)
Greer & Walker v. Liipfert-Scales Co.
47 So. 307 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1908)
Boyett v. Frankfort Chair Co.
44 So. 546 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1907)
Washington County v. Porter
128 Ala. 278 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1900)
Hoffman, Ahlers & Co. v. Alabama Distillery & Feeding Co.
124 Ala. 542 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1899)
Southern Home B. & L. Ass'n v. Gillespie
121 Ala. 295 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1898)
Independent Publishing Co. v. American Press Ass'n
102 Ala. 475 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1893)
Oxanna Building Ass'n v. Agee
99 Ala. 571 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1892)
Home Protection v. Caldwell Bros.
85 Ala. 607 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
76 Ala. 372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manhattan-fire-insurance-v-fowler-co-ala-1884.