Williamson v. New Orleans Insurance

84 Ala. 106
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedDecember 15, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 84 Ala. 106 (Williamson v. New Orleans Insurance) 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
Williamson v. New Orleans Insurance, 84 Ala. 106 (Ala. 1887).

Opinion

CLOPTON, J.

The evidence that the farmers in the neighborhood in which the insured property was situated usually gather, gin and market their cotton before the time of year at which the fire occurred, was improperly admitted. There was no issue joined between the parties to which the evidence was relevant. The plaintiff was not under obligations to gin and market his cotton before any specified time. It was his privilege to let it remain in the gin-house, until such time as suited his convenience to remove it. He was authorized to keep it in the gin-house during the entire time the policy was in force, and rely upon the insurance for his protection.

The answers to the questions contained in the application for insurance are made a part of the contract and. express, warranties of their truth. Notwithstanding this, if the agent of the insured made true statements of the condition of the title and ownership of the property to the agent the defendant at the time the application for insurance and the answers were made, and the agent of the defendant nevertheless wrote the answer as appears in the application, thus substituting an answer which was untrue, the answer is the statement of the agent and not of the assured. In such case, the defendant will not be permitted to take advantage of the wrongful act, or misconstruction, or mistake of its own agent, and avoid the policy, the insured being without/ fault. — Ala. Gold Life Ins. Co. v. Garner, 77 Ala. 210.

The charge of the court withdrew from the consideration of the jury the evidence, tending to show that the assured made a full and truthful statement of the condition of the title to the property, at the time of making the answers, and that the answers, as written therein, were made by the agent [109]*109of the defendant, at his own suggestion and upon his own volition.

The burden is upon the plaintiff to show that he made a full and true statement of the condition of the title. The defense of a breach of the warranty is not technical, and should receive the same consideration as any other meritorious defense.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Atkins
389 So. 2d 117 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1980)
Barnes v. Atlantic & Pacific Life Insurance Co. of America
325 So. 2d 143 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1975)
National Security Fire and Casualty Co. v. Hester
298 So. 2d 236 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1974)
Coastal States Life Insurance Company v. Leonard
182 So. 2d 913 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1966)
Jersey Ins. Co. v. Roddam
56 So. 2d 631 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1951)
Inter-Ocean Casualty Co. v. Ervin
156 So. 844 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1934)
Life Casualty Ins. Co. of Tennessee v. Waldrop
153 So. 656 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1933)
National Life Accident Ins. Co. v. Baker
147 So. 427 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1933)
First Nat. Life Ins. Co. of America v. Rector
142 So. 392 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1932)
Yorkshire Ins. Co. v. Gazis
121 So. 84 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1929)
Farmers Mutual Insurance v. Tankersley
69 So. 410 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1915)
Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. Ryalls
53 So. 754 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1910)
Smith v. Mutual Cash Guaranty Fire Ins.
113 N.W. 94 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1907)
Shotliff v. Modern Woodmen of America
73 S.W. 326 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1903)
Pope v. Glens Falls Insurance
130 Ala. 356 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1900)
Triple Link Mutual Indemnity Ass'n v. Williams
121 Ala. 138 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1898)
Sellers v. Commercial Fire Insurance
105 Ala. 282 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1894)
Creed v. Sun Fire Office of London
101 Ala. 522 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1893)
Planters & Merchants Insurance v. Thurston
93 Ala. 255 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1890)
Brown v. Commercial Fire Insurance
86 Ala. 189 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
84 Ala. 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williamson-v-new-orleans-insurance-ala-1887.