Williams v. Continental Ins.

Ninth Circuit

Williams v. Continental Ins.

152 F.2d 958

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 7, 1946

DocketNo. 11052

StatusPublished

This text of 152 F.2d 958 (Williams v. Continental Ins.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. Continental Ins., 152 F.2d 958 (9th Cir. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

HEALY, Circuit Judge.

Appellee insured appellant Sydney M. Williams and his wife, Elizabeth, against loss by robbery of certain jewelry. Thereafter the insured persons, claiming that the jewelry had been taken from them in a holdup, presented proof of loss and were paid the amount claimed.

Subsequently appellee sued to recover on the ground that the claim of loss was false and fraudulent in that in fact no robbery had occurred. The wife, Elizabeth Williams, admitted the allegations of the complaint and on the trial testified for appellee. The trial resulted in a judgment against appellant in the amount paid on the claim.

Appellant contends that the suit is predicated on a charge of conspiracy, hence, he says, recovery can not properly be predicated on the uncorroborated testimony of the accomplice, namely, the wife. The contention has several answers, of which we shall mention but two. In the first place, the gravamen of the action is fraud, not conspiracy. Cf. 5 Cal.Jur. 530; Revert v. Hesse, 184 Cal. 295, 193 P. 943; Kittle Mfg. Co. v. Davis, 8 Cal.App.2d 504, 47 P.2d 1089; Andrews v. Young, 21 Cal. App.2d 523, 69 P.2d 891. Secondly, assuming for any reason that corroboration of the wife’s testimony was necessary, there was ample corroboration.

Affirmed.

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

HEALY, Circuit Judge.

Appellee insured appellant Sydney M. Williams and his wife, Elizabeth, against loss by robbery of certain jewelry. Thereafter the insured persons, claiming that the jewelry had been taken from them in a holdup, presented proof of loss and were paid the amount claimed.

Subsequently appellee sued to recover on the ground that the claim of loss was false and fraudulent in that in fact no robbery had occurred. The wife, Elizabeth Williams, admitted the allegations of the complaint and on the trial testified for appellee. The trial resulted in a judgment against appellant in the amount paid on the claim.

Appellant contends that the suit is predicated on a charge of conspiracy, hence, he says, recovery can not properly be predicated on the uncorroborated testimony of the accomplice, namely, the wife. The contention has several answers, of which we shall mention but two. In the first place, the gravamen of the action is fraud, not conspiracy. Cf. 5 Cal.Jur. 530; Revert v. Hesse, 184 Cal. 295, 193 P. 943; Kittle Mfg. Co. v. Davis, 8 Cal.App.2d 504, 47 P.2d 1089; Andrews v. Young, 21 Cal. App.2d 523, 69 P.2d 891. Secondly, assuming for any reason that corroboration of the wife’s testimony was necessary, there was ample corroboration.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 F.2d 958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-continental-ins-ca9-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack