Case ID: walker_1/html/0359-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ALLEGHENY INSURANCE CO. vs. O’HANLON.
    The schedule of goods destroyed, in connection with testimony of plaintiff, that it is correct, may be given in evidence, to show the amount and value of goods destroyed.
    Error to the Common Pleas of-Allegheny County. No. 94 October and November Term, 1874.
    This was an action to recover on a policy of insurance for a stock of goods, which were insured by the insurance company. The plaintiff had negotiations with the agents of the companies before making proofs of his loss, and was led to believe that the company would settle with him, which delayed the preliminary proofs of loss being made until after the thirty days allowed for making proof had expired. The Court left the question, whether the insurance company had, by its action, waived the benefit of this clause of the policy, as a question of fact to the jury. (1st error.)
    On the trial the Court admitted an inventory of goods totally destroyed as tending to show the amount and value thereof, in connection with the testimony of plaintiff and his son, who swore that they made it out at the instance of the insurance company) by direction of their agent, and that it was correct; in respect to items, amounts or quantities, and values. This was objected to by defendants and its admission forms the subject of the- second error.
    
      George Shiras, Esq., for plaintiff in error argued:
    that the statement of plaintiff was not evidence of the quantity and value of the goods destroyed: Commonwealth Insurance Co. vs. Sennett, 5 Wright, 161; Lycoming Insurance Co. vs. Schreffler, 6 Wright, 188.
    
      M. W. Acheson, Esq., contra, argued:
    that the inventory complained of, in connection with the testimony of plaintiff and his son, was properly admitted, and the cases cited are not applicable to the present one.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court below on October 26, 1874, in the following opinion :

Per Curiam.

There was evidence to take the case to the jury on the question of a waiver of time in furnishing the preliminary proofs of the plaintiffs loss. The verdict establishes the waiver of thirty days as the time in the case of the Hibernia Company. The statements made by the plaintiff and son were correctly admitted in evidence as the account of particulars. He and his son were competent witnesses to prove the items of the account and testify that the statement was made out by them. The fact that they referred to invoices and other papers to assist them in remembering the articles and prices, does not necessarily give the statement the character of a copy or of secondary evidence. The point of the matter is, that they swear to the statement as their own work, made out from their knowledge of the facts. One may know that he received and liad the articles set forth in a certain invoice, and that these articles, or a certain number of them, were destroyed by the fire, and yet be unable to remember the items without the assistance of the invoice to refresh the memory.

In all cases where accounts are multitudinous, the rule as to the personal knowledge of the witness is relaxed. He must be permitted to put the items into an account, and to refresh his recollection by means of other accounts aud papers as to the items. Otherwise great injustice would be done. In an account of sales consisting of numerous items, a party rarely recollects all the items, but he can be perfectly certain from his mode of business on finding the entries in bis books that the charges were correctly made.

We discover no error in the record, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.