Case ID: johns_1/html/0149-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. H. Sleght, against Hartshorne, Rhinelander, and others.
    Where no objection is made at the trial of an action on a policy of insurance, for want of preliminary proofs, but the parties proceed on the merits, the court will allow the special verdict to be amended by adding the preliminary proofs.
    
    PENDLETON, for the defendant, moved for leave to amend the special verdict in this cause, by striking out the following words, “ that the said plaintiff, made to the said “ defendants, the usual proof of interest, and. proof of loss, “ more than thirty days before the commencement of his “ action, as was required by the said writing or policy of “ assurance,” which had been added to the verdict when it was corrected before the judge who tried the cause.
    
      Radclif and Hoffman, opposed the motion.
    They cited Durnford and East, vol. 3. p. 749. Bacon's Ab. Tit. Verdict. Comyn's Digest, Tit. Amendment. (P.)
    
      Harison replied.
    It appeared that there had been a long trial of the cause upon its merits, during which no question was made as to the preliminary proofs, which were not called for, nor were they stated in the heads of the special verdict found by the jury.
   Per Curiam.

As the defendants at the trial, made no objection to the want of preliminary proofs, but proceeded in their defence on the merits of the causé, it must be presumed that their existence and competency were admitted. Being matter merely formal, and not controverted by the defendants, it 'was proper to state their admission in the special verdict.

Rule refused.