Phenix Insurance v. Fulton

4 S.E. 866, 80 Ga. 224
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedDecember 12, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 4 S.E. 866 (Phenix Insurance v. Fulton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Phenix Insurance v. Fulton, 4 S.E. 866, 80 Ga. 224 (Ga. 1887).

Opinion

Blandford, Justice.

The only question in this case is this : Fulton, in his application to this company for insurance upon a certain house, was asked whether there was any incumbrance upon it or not. He answered that there was not, when in fact there was an incumbrance of $500 upon it and the land on which it was situated. The court left it to the jury to say whether this misstatement by Fulton was a material misstatement in this case. The jury found that it was not, and found in favor of Fulton.

The insurance applied for was $1,000. The house was shown to have been worth from $1,200 to $1,500; the land, according to the testimony, was worth from $6,500 to $10,000. The incumbrance amounted only to $500.

According to our code, the misstatement must be material in order to void the policy. The question of whether it is material or not, is a question for the jury, and in this case was properly left to the jury. There is no complaint that the question was not fairly submitted to them. We think there was sufficient evidence to authorize their find, [227]*227ing. They might very well have considered that, where-there was only an incumbrance of $500 upon premises of the .value testified to, the failure to state it in the application was not such a material misstatement as would void-the policy. The jury having so found, we affirm the judgment of the court below in refusing the grant of a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Vaughn v. National Life & Accident Insurance
5 S.E.2d 238 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. Yates
185 S.E. 268 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)
John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. Yates
179 S.E. 239 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n v. Bell
176 S.E. 124 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Life & Casualty Insurance v. Burkett
144 S.E. 29 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)
Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance v. Mulkey
82 S.E. 1054 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1914)
Fox v. Queen Insurance
53 S.E. 271 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)
Massachusetts Benefit Life Ass'n v. Robinson
42 L.R.A. 261 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1898)
Scottish Union & National Insurance v. Stubbs
27 S.E. 180 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 S.E. 866, 80 Ga. 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phenix-insurance-v-fulton-ga-1887.