New Jersey Insurance v. Rowell

Court of Appeals of Georgia

New Jersey Insurance v. Rowell

123 S.E. 38, 32 Ga. App. 16, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 219

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 15, 1924

Docket14331

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 S.E. 38 (New Jersey Insurance v. Rowell) 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

New Jersey Insurance v. Rowell, 123 S.E. 38, 32 Ga. App. 16, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 219 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinions

Broyles, C. J.

1. Where a policy of fire insurance, taken out by the tenant and lessee of a building, insured the building for a certain sum, and a stock of goods in the building for another certain sum, the consideration of the policy being a premium payable in a gross sum, and where the policy of insurance contained a clause making any loss or damage to the building payable to a named third person (the owner of the building), “as his interest may appear,” and where both the building and the stock of goods were subsequently damaged by fire, and the insured brought suit in his own name to recover the amount of both the damage to the stock of goods and the damage to the building, the petition was not subject to general demurrer for the reason that it failed to set forth that the recovery for the damage to the building was sought for the use and benefit of the person named in the aforesaid loss-payable clause.

(a) The above ruling was made by the Supreme Court in answer to a question certified to it by this court. For a full discussion of this question see New Jersey Insurance Co. v. Rowell, 157 Ga. 300 (121 S. E. 414).

2. The special demurrers to the petition are without substantial merit, and the court properly overruled them.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworlh, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. Where a policy of fire insurance, taken out by the tenant and lessee of a building, insured the building for a certain sum, and a stock of goods in the building for another certain sum, the consideration of the policy being a premium payable in a gross sum, and where the policy of insurance contained a clause making any loss or damage to the building payable to a named third person (the owner of the building), “as his interest may appear,” and where both the building and the stock of goods were subsequently damaged by fire, and the insured brought suit in his own name to recover the amount of both the damage to the stock of goods and the damage to the building, the petition was not subject to general demurrer for the reason that it failed to set forth that the recovery for the damage to the building was sought for the use and benefit of the person named in the aforesaid loss-payable clause.

(a) The above ruling was made by the Supreme Court in answer to a question certified to it by this court. For a full discussion of this question see New Jersey Insurance Co. v. Rowell, 157 Ga. 300 (121 S. E. 414).

2. The special demurrers to the petition are without substantial merit, and the court properly overruled them.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworlh, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 S.E. 38, 32 Ga. App. 16, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-jersey-insurance-v-rowell-gactapp-1924.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack