Case ID: la_6/html/0117-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mathews, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GUILLAME vs. THE LOUISIANA INSURANCE COMPANY.
    APPEAL FROM THE PARISH COURT FOR THE PARISH AND CITY OF NEW-ORLEANS, THE JUDGE THEREOF PRESIDING.
    This case presents a question of fact, only.
    The petition alleged that the Louisiana Insurance Company, in consideration of a premium of one hundred and seventy-four dollars, insured the plaintiff against damage by fire, with the usual exceptions, relating to foreign invasions, &c., to the amount of eleven thousand and six hundred dollars, on furniture and other property, more particularly described in the policy, dated 11th of June, 1832. The policy insured him against loss by fire, on wines, spirits, liquors and provisions, stored in a building at the left side of a public hotel, situated at the foot of the rail road, near lake Pontchartrain, amounting to four thousand and seven hundred dollars; and also on kitchen'utensils and furniture, to the amount of one thousand and one hundred dollars.
    On the night of the 8th of September, 1832, the whole of the wines, liquors, &c., stored in the said building, together with the kitchen utensils and furniture, were, by accident, destroyed by fire; causing a loss, as the plaintiff alleges, amounting to six thousand dollars, on the wines, spirits, &c., and one thousand and one hundred dollars on the kitchen utensils and furniture.
    The petition avers, that as soon afterwards as possible, he gave notice of this loss to the President and Directors of the Insurance Company, and delivered them as a particular account of his damages as possible, his books and other vouchers, exhibiting the amount of the loss and other circumstances of the occurrence, with his oath at the foot of the statement, and other certificates, required by the policy.
    The Insurance Company admitted the insurance of the articles, as stated in the petition, but denied the other allegations, particularly that the value of the articles in the building at the time, was so great as stated.
    
      P. Soulé, Esq. testified, that he applied to the company on behalf of the plaintiff, and after a month’s delay, was answered that the board had refused payment.
    
      Francois, testified, that a few days previous to the fire, the plaintiff’s store was filled with merchandise, and the kitchen was well furnished. The kitchen and store were entirely consumed, though every effort to save them was made; and nothing in either of them was preserved.
    
      Guildemeester attended at the inventory in June, previous. He thought the appraisement not high. He had seen bills of all the articles, specified in the inventory.
    
      
      Gerard was also present at the making of the inventory * ° J * He examined the store at the time, and thought the state. ment correct. He was accustomed to keep a store, and did not think the. appraisement of the articles in the store, and 1 of the kitchen utensils and furniture, high.
    
      Gabaroche was in plaintiff’s store five days before the fire, and found it so full that it was impossible to put a cask of wine in it; believes the merchandise then in it was worth four or five thousand dollars; two casks of wine were then standing at the door, for want of room within.
    The defendants produced several witnesses.
    
      Bagley, testified, that during the fire, and after the weather boards were burnt, he saw wiihin the store a pile of boxes, apparently of wine, about thirty in number. He saw there no pipes or barrels, nor any thing burning like spirits. It was an hour and a half after the fire was discovered, when he looked into the store.
    
      Spencer, saw forty or fifty boxes of wine in the store, but could see no barrels or casks there. The ground floor then remained.
    
      Francqueville, for the plaintiff, testified that he and one Franqois, about twelve o’clock of the night the fire occurred, had inspected the buildings at the plaintiff’s request. That the plaintiff’s wife and child were saved from the fire with some difficulty; that he believes the greatest part of the goods were destroyed before the weather boarding was burnt, so that a person could see into the store.
    Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for the sum of five thousand and eight hundred dollars.
    The defendants appealed.
   Mathews, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action on a policy of insurance, against damage and loss by fire. The plaintiff obtained judgment in the court below, from which the defendants appealed. The case has been submitted on the appeal without argment.

Grimes, for defendants and appellants.

Soulé, contra.

It appears, from an examination of the record, to involve only matters of lact, and the main fact put at issue by the pleadings, relates to the quantity and value of the merchandise owned by the plaintiff, and which was actually destroyed by fire, to the injury and loss of the assured; in other words, the amount of damage which he really did sustain. With a view to ascertain the truth in relation to this part of the cause, we have turned our attention particularly to the testimony. That adduced on the part of the plaintiff, and not circumstantially contradicted by the witnesses of the defendants, although not so entirely explicit as might be desired, is, in our opinion, sufficient to support the judgment rendered by the Parish Court.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that tb.a judgment of the Parish Court be affirmed, with costs in both courts.