Case ID: ny-st-rep_14/html/0929-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pratt, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JAMES H. ROHME, Resp’t, v. THE FIRE ASSOCIATION OF PHILADELPHIA, App’lt.
    Insurance—Pire—Evidence of loss—What material.
    Appeal by defendant from a judgment recovered by the plaintiff. The action was brought upon a fire insurance policy, and was tried at the Orange county circuit and special term, before a judge, without a jury, and a decision was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount claimed.
    
      Scott & Hirschberg, for resp’t; S. & L. M. Brown, for app’lt.
   Pratt, J.

The only question to be considered is whether the failure of plaintiff to state the cost to him of the sewing machine is a defense to this action.

It is to be remarked that the insurance is for §1,200, and the loss proven exceeds §1,400. And it is conceded that the loss exceeded the amount of insurance.

The contention of plaintiff, that under those circumstances the value of the sewing machine was irrelevant has much force.

But the unanswered questions bore slightly, if at all, upon the question of value. The witness stated that the retail price was fifty dollars, and went on to state, that being an agent of the company, he was allowed the machine at cost price to the company.

When asked that price, the witness very naturally replied that it was a trade secret of his employers, which he was not willing to divulge without their consent.

We think that the cost of manufacture was not a matter with which defendants need concern themselves.

Ths market value of such machines and the condition of the machine in question would enable the court to decide upon the value of the machine.

We think plaintiff’s examination was a compliance with the condition of the policy

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Barnard, P. J., and Dykman, J., concur.