The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-04-08


Opinion by Judge Rely.
Ihe man question IN this case are de-
termined In Georgia Home Insurance
Company VS. same defendants. supra
This company in acknowledging re-
ceipt OF proof Of loss simply stated,
without pointing out any defects that
the proof Tor the blank form filled out
by the insured) was not made up in con-
formity with the policy contract, and
was mot satisfactory"
Held. n was obligatory upon the COM
pany to specify the defects. and Its fall
ure 10 do so was waiver OF any OBJ
lection TO the proof Of loss. . May on
ms. Cd Edn. secs. i6S-69 y. a denial OF
all liability under the policy absolves in
sured from furnishing any preliminary
proof Of loss. or from correcting defects
IN 1t II already furnished. II would be
an idle formality which the law does not
require. Portsmouth Insurance Com
pany VS.. Reynolds Adrnx g Graft. 6l3;
West Rockingham NJ. +. ms. Co. VS..
Sheets &; Co.. % Graft. 50
To the question in the application
will you agree 10 keep reliable person
IN the building at all times?' the an
swer was: wv. Il. Goode sleeps In the
building" The evidence shows that
when application was being filed up the
soliciting agent was Informed that Goode
habitually slept In the building. but tina.
It was impossible for him to sleep there
every night as he had 10 be absent some
times when purchasing goods and for
other purposes. and II company Insisted
upon some ones sleeping there every
night the answer must be NO"
The agent said this was not the mean
ing OF the clause: that the company
did not expect that some one should
sleep IN the building every night. and
that the answer. as afterwards written
"W. D. Goode sleeps in building" would
be all that was necessary, and would be
satisfactory 20 the company; and that
It was so written AZ agent dlctation.
and with full knowledge on his part OF
the entire situation.
Held. II the facts communicated 10
the agent had been directly communi-
Gated 10 the company it would have
been estopped 10 assert forfeiture be-
cause no one was sleeping in the build
ing the night OF the fire. His knowledge
being imputabl, 70 the company. II Is
equally estopptd though these facts were
not disclosed by him to the company. or
10 its general agents whose employee he
was. Goode & Co.. VS.. Georgia Home
Insurance Company. % Va. 5s2. This
conclusion renders any opinion unneces-
sary as 10 whether the answer was
promissory or merely an Affirmative
warranty, as a somewhat similar an
swer was held 10 be in Virginia Fire and
Marine Insurance Company vs.. Buck &
Newrr an, IS Va. ST.
Q The court did not err in admitting
testimony as 10 what passed between
the agent and insured when the answers
to certain questions were given. Such
evidence is proper in case OF insurance
contracts-not for the purpose OF con-
tradicting the writing "5ut 10 show that
the representation, as II was written,
ought not TO be used against the party
upon the ground OF an equitable estoppel.
Lync hburg Fire Insurance Company VS..
Wet. 76 Va. 575
II is not necessary 10 go over the in
structions seriatim a the questions OF
law embodied in them have been 50 lately
decided by this court. Mutual Fire In
surance Company VS.. Ward. 2S s. L. r.,
209: Farmers & NJ. Ben. +. ASS. VS.. VIII
Hams ID. PA: Goode & Co. VS.. Georgia
Home Insurance Company supra.
Those given for the plaintiff correctly
expound the law. those asked by the de-
PENDANT ami reused. were in conflict
with the principles Of It's decisions.
SUMMARY.
Judge James Kcith-Stoneburner &
Richards VS.. Motley. Circuit Court OF
Essex county Reversed.
Judge John w. Riely-Georgia Home In
surance Company vs.. Goodc a. Co. Cir |
cult Court of Fauquier county. Affirmed !
Virginia Fire and Marine Insurance |
VS. Goode & Co Circuit Court |
of Fauquier county. Affirmed.
Judge John A. Northumberland |
Life Insurance Company VS. Rutherford. |
Law and Equity Court ci;y OF Richmond. |
Reversed
Judge Geo NJ Harrison-Pace VS.. PAGES |
admr. &C Corporation Court city OF Dan
vile. Reversed.
Reid We. Commonwealth. Hastings !
Court city of Richmond. Writ Of error |
Kendrick We. Cumming. Circuit Court |
OF Washington county. Writ OF error |
refused.
Hunsucker VS.. Hunsucker. Circuit |
Court OF wise county. Appeal refused.
Basic City VS.. Basic city Mining Com. |
pany Circuit Court Of Augusta county
Apreal refused. go,
Railroad Co. Circuit Court OF Brunswick |
county. Appeal refused.
Kelly VS.. Holston salt & Plaster 60.
Court city OF Bristoi. APP
peal refused
SARAH F. Pegram. relator VS.. Morton J
Narve auditor. respondent. Petition for |
mandamus. Mandamus denied.
S--oot vs.. People's PERPETUAL Loan ~
Rrirdlng Association. Petition to rehear.
'''''''' W. W. SCOTT.