Reed, Et Vir v. the American Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J., (1937)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 9
Judges: DAVIS, J.
Attorneys: W.D. Bell and Sheppard Clements, for Plaintiff in Error;
Henderson Franklin and Batchelor Dyer, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: May 20, 1937
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: In this case the plaintiff in error brought suit on a policy of fire insurance. After a trial on the merits, the jury found a verdict for the insurance company. Plaintiff below has appealed. We are of the opinion that plaintiff below sufficiently proved that she was the sole and unconditional owner of the property within the meaning of the policy requiring sole and unconditional ownership as a condition to the insurance when she showed that she had unqualifiedly agreed to buy it, and the vendor
Summary: In this case the plaintiff in error brought suit on a policy of fire insurance. After a trial on the merits, the jury found a verdict for the insurance company. Plaintiff below has appealed. We are of the opinion that plaintiff below sufficiently proved that she was the sole and unconditional owner of the property within the meaning of the policy requiring sole and unconditional ownership as a condition to the insurance when she showed that she had unqualifiedly agreed to buy it, and the vendor h..
More
At the time the policy was procured, was the married woman unconditionally bound to pay the purchase price? If the loss had occurred then, would she have sustained the loss? Could she not have refused to pay the purchase price and thus thrown the loss upon the vendors? It seems to me that the answer to these questions is obvious, and that such answers show that the married woman vendee could not have been compelled to pay the purchase price and therefore she was not the sole and unconditional owner when the policies were written. With this qualification I concur in the affirmance.
Source: CourtListener
