Case ID: ga-app_25/html/0664-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Broyles, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

10293.
    Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York v. Young Shoe Parlor.
    Decided October 1, 1920.
    Action on insurance policy; from Fulton superior court — Judge Pendleton. December 17, 1918.
    1, The action was upon a policy insuring against loss by burglary of goods “from within the premises” defined in the policy, which contains provisions limiting the meaning of the term “premises and which in an attached schedule states “the location of the building and that “the assured occupies Rooms 206 and 207.55 The first question certified by the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court was in substance whether 'the policy covered goods which at the time of the alleged loss were not in the rooms designated in the policy, but were in a basement room occupied by the insured as a storeroom on a different floor of the building. The question was answered in the negative. The material provisions of the policy are set out in 150 Ga. 402.
   Broyles, C. J.

Under the rulings made by the Supreme Court on September 15, 1920, in answer to certain questions in this case certified by this court (150 Ga. 402, 104 S. E. 429), neither count of the plaintiff’s petition set out a cause of action, and the trial court erred in overruling the general demurrers thereto.

Judgment reversed.

Bloodworth, J., concurs. Luke, J., absent on account of illness.

2. Whether an estoppel to deny liability was shown by facts alleged in the second count of the plaintiff’s petition was a question also certified, and also answer.ed in the negative. The facts are set out in 150 Ga., supra.

Rosser, Slaton, Phillips & Hopkins, for plaintiff in error.

Little, Powell, Smith & Goldstein, contra.