United States Health & Accident Ins. v. Savage

64 So. 340, 185 Ala. 232, 1914 Ala. LEXIS 77
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJanuary 22, 1914
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 64 So. 340 (United States Health & Accident Ins. v. Savage) 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
United States Health & Accident Ins. v. Savage, 64 So. 340, 185 Ala. 232, 1914 Ala. LEXIS 77 (Ala. 1914).

Opinion

SOMERVILLE; J.

The complaint is in the Code form (Code 1907, p. 1196). This form, though simple and concise, requires a description of the policy sued on to the extent of its date and the term of its opera[235]*235tion. As averments descriptive of .tbe contract, these matters are material and essential, and a substantial variance between tbe averments of tbe complaint and tbe terms of tbe contract offered in evidence to support it is fatal to any recovery, if objection is seasonably made by tbe defendant in tbe trial court.

Tbe variance here apparent was, under all tbe authorities, a fatal variance, and tbe trial court erred in refusing tbe peremptory instruction requested. — 9 Cyc. 750e; 31 Cyc. 710, 716; McLendon v. Godfrey, 3 Ala. 181; Jordan v. Rooney, 23 Ala. 758; May & Bell v. Miller, 27 Ala. 515; Mason v. Hall, 30 Ala. 599; Boylston v. Sherran, 31 Ala. 538; Gamble v. Kellum, 97 Ala. 677, 12 South. 82; U. S. H. & A. Co. v. Veitch, 161 Ala. 630, 50 South. 95.

It is urged by counsel for appellee that tbe variance is avoided by tbe use of a videlicet in the-complaint. But as pointed out by Mr. Greenleaf: “A videlicet will not avoid a variance, or dispense with exact proof, in an allegation of a material matter.”- — 1 Greenl. on Ev. § 60, cited with approval in B. R. L. & P. Co. v. Lide, 177 Ala. 400, 58 South. 990, 991.

Under tbe new rule of circuit court practice (rule 34, as adopted June 23, 1913 [175 Ala. p. xxi]), a variance is available to tbe opposite party only upon proper and seasonable objection to tbe alleged variant evidence. But under tbe former rule, which prevailed ivhen this case was tried the objection was sufficiently presented by an unexplained request for tbe affirmative charge to tbe jury.- — Adler v. Martin, 179 Ala. 97, 59 South. 597.

Tbe judgment is reversed, and tbe cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Anderson, C. J., and McClellan and Sayre, JJ., concur.

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

Related

McKleroy v. Delchamps Food Stores
268 So. 2d 282 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1972)
Davenport v. Bonner
152 So. 2d 678 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1963)
Elrod v. Trussell
96 So. 2d 813 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1957)
Nelson v. Cutter Boat & Motor Co.
72 So. 2d 86 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1954)
Andalusia Motor Co. v. Mullins
183 So. 456 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1938)
Barnett v. Williams
168 So. 583 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1936)
Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. Feltman
147 So. 396 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1933)
Walker v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
108 So. 388 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1926)
Reliance Life Ins. Co. v. Russell
94 So. 748 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)
Lawrenceburg Roller Mills Co. v. Chas. A. Jones & Co.
85 So. 719 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1920)
Western Assur. Co. v. Hann
78 So. 232 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1917)
Howton v. Mathias
73 So. 92 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1916)
Allen v. Standard Ins.
73 So. 897 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1916)
Knights of Modern Macabees v. Gillespie
71 So. 67 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 So. 340, 185 Ala. 232, 1914 Ala. LEXIS 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-health-accident-ins-v-savage-ala-1914.