Richardson v. North Missouri Insurance

57 Mo. 413
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided August 15, 1874·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action on a policy of fire insurance. The defendant filed an answer to the merits, and after the cause had been continued several terms, the defendant withdrew its answer, and the plaintiff took judgment for want -of answer —which was made final.

The defendant filed a motion in arrest, alleging that the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. .

This motion was overruled and the defendant excepted, and has appealed to this court.

The only point made is, that the petition does not specifically allege notice and proofs of loss, which were conditions precedent to the plaintiff’s right of recovery.

The petition does allege that tin) plaintiff' “duly fulfilled all the conditions of said policy on his part.” This is ail our practice act requires. (See 2nd "Wagn. Stat., 1020, § 42.)

Judgment affirmed.

Judge Sherwood absent; the other judges concur.

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

Richardson v. North Missouri Insurance, 57 Mo. 413 (Mo. 1874).

57 Mo. 413 (Richardson v. North Missouri Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Clark v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen
74 S.W. 412 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1903)
Sisk v. American Central Fire Insurance
69 S.W. 687 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1902)
Murphy v. North British & Mercantile Insurance
70 Mo. App. 78 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1897)
Hester v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.
69 Mo. App. 186 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1897)
Chaney v. Phœnix Insurance
62 Mo. App. 45 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1895)
Okey v. State Insurance
29 Mo. App. 105 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1888)
Ætna Insurance v. Kittles
81 Ind. 96 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)