Phœnix Insurance v. Asbury

Supreme Court of Georgia

Phœnix Insurance v. Asbury

27 S.E. 667, 102 Ga. 565, 1897 Ga. LEXIS 583

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 22, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 27 S.E. 667 (Phœnix Insurance v. Asbury) 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

Phœnix Insurance v. Asbury, 27 S.E. 667, 102 Ga. 565, 1897 Ga. LEXIS 583 (Ga. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Cobb, J.

1. When this case was here at the March term, 1895 (95 Ga. 792), it was held that a conveyance under section 1969 of the Code of 1882 (Civil Code, $2771) was an alienation of the property passing title to the grantee, and that consequently the making of such a conveyance by the insured vitiated a policy stipulating that it should be void “if the property should be sold, or the title or possession of the property, or any part thereof, transferred or changed, whether by legal process, judicial decree, conveyance or otherwise.” At the trial now under review it was affirmatively and conclusively shown that the deed made by the plaintiff, below was void for usury. This being so, it did not pass title out of him, and therefore presented no obstacle to a recovery by him from the company.

2. This case is controlled by what is abové stated; the trial judge committed no error in instructing the jury that the company was liable, leaving them to fix the amount; and it appearing that the verdict as to amount was sufficiently supported by the evidence, there is no cause for granting another hearing. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Cobb, J.

1. When this case was here at the March term, 1895 (95 Ga. 792), it was held that a conveyance under section 1969 of the Code of 1882 (Civil Code, $2771) was an alienation of the property passing title to the grantee, and that consequently the making of such a conveyance by the insured vitiated a policy stipulating that it should be void “if the property should be sold, or the title or possession of the property, or any part thereof, transferred or changed, whether by legal process, judicial decree, conveyance or otherwise.” At the trial now under review it was affirmatively and conclusively shown that the deed made by the plaintiff, below was void for usury. This being so, it did not pass title out of him, and therefore presented no obstacle to a recovery by him from the company.

2. This case is controlled by what is abové stated; the trial judge committed no error in instructing the jury that the company was liable, leaving them to fix the amount; and it appearing that the verdict as to amount was sufficiently supported by the evidence, there is no cause for granting another hearing. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 S.E. 667, 102 Ga. 565, 1897 Ga. LEXIS 583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phnix-insurance-v-asbury-ga-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack