The Penn's Grove record., 1882-04-22
Important Supreme Court.
Decisions.
INSURANCE, RENTERS, PRACTICE.
Insurance Law.

case OF Lne w esbefH AhSuEAHCe COUu'
pany Of Toronto, Canada, VS.. David
Alderman and Betty Ackerman, hi,
wife, in the right Of the wife-error tt
the Coumon Pleas of Lackawsnns
county-snd affirmed the judgment
of the Court below. This was an &C.
ton OF debt brought in the right Of
Betty Alderman against the insurance
company to recover upon a policy OF
fire insurance for her actual loss OF
shoe stock and machinery. The prop
erty destroyed was valued at $4,000
concurrently insured in this and three
other companies. AT the trial, on be-
half of Mrs. Ackerman, it was shown
that the goods described in the policies
were in her possession at the time they
were insured, and that they were de-
stroyed by fire that proof of loss had
been made to the insurance company,
and, upon objection being made by
them, further proof was made to meet
their objections. That the insurance
company declined to adjust the loss.
The defendants contended that it WIS
an attempt to defraud them that the
goods described in the policy had not
been destroyed that the goods were
over-valued /; that Mrs. Alderman was
not the sole and unconditional owner
of the property, and that she had not
submitted herself to an examination
under oath by the agents of the COM
pany, nor furnished them certified
copies of accounts of proof or loss
vouchers; and that, therefore, the ver-
dict should be for the defendant. 1t
was shown in answer to this by Mrs.
Acketman, that she gave the agents
of the company all the books and
accounts she had, and referred him to
New York firms for evidence which
she did not possess.
The Court held that as against the
defendant, possession by Mrs. Acker-
man wss prima facie proof of owner.
ship in personal property destroyed,
and left the question of ownership
values and faith to the jury. AS to
the clause in the policy which required
the assured to submit to an examine
ton under oath, and the production of
books, accounts and vouchers, or GER
titled copies if lost, the Court charged
hat this might be waived, and, if the
company fails to make this objection
at the time of the proof of loss, or to
give Mrs. Alderman specific notice of
what they required of her, then they
had waived that part of the contract.
The jury found for the plaintiff. A
judgment was accordingly entered in
her favor, against the insurance COM
pany, for $247.32.
The insurance company by writ of
error removed the case to the Supreme
Court, ~contending that the Court had
erred in charging the jury upon the
question of possession as prima facie
proof of the ownership as against the
company. That the assured was
bound to strictly follow out the provi-
sions of the policy as to submitting to
an examination under oath as to her
property and furnishing proofs of &C
counts, vouchers and the like. And
inasmuch as she had referred the COM
pany to parties in New York they
should have been permitted to show
the conversation with such parties,
together with their refusal to give the
proofs required. The Supreme Court,
however, affirmed the decision of the
Court bslow, and in a per curtain opin-
ion, filed, say.
Western ms, Co. VS.. Ackerman.-
Per Cur. Possession Of personal prop
erty is prima facie evidence of owner
ship, and he policy being in the name
of the wife this, with the possession
was, as against the defendant, prima
facie evidence that she was the owner.
1t was certainly a fact for the jury,
and fairly submitted to them, whether
the stock of goods insured did in fact
exist. There was no evidence, as the
learned Judge rightly held, that Mrs.
.ckermau had refused to submit her.
self to examination under oath. The
answer to the Plaintiffs point was UNI.
doubtedly right, as was the ruling of
the learned Judge in the rejection of
the evidence. The agent who inquired
of the persons in New York was the
agent of the company, and there was
nothing in the plaintiffs reference to
them which bound him by their an
swers. So far as the evidence was
rejected it was merely hearsay. Judg-
ment affirmed.
Law fer Renters.
The following law cannot fail to