Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-09-03
RESCRIPTS JUST
HANDED DOWN
BY Law COURT

~
Furniture Co. VS.. Prussian National
Insurance Co. which was heard at the
June Law court term was handed down
Tuesday by the law court justices;
Rescript Per Curtain.
This is an action upon a policy of
insurance against loss by fire. The
jury found for defendant and the
plaintiff except to the ruling of the
court and moves, upon the usual
grounds, for a new trial.
The following instruction was re-
quested and denied and is the only
ground of exception: the acts
of the defendant, after it had all the
information it now possesses in re-
gard to the cause of the fire and had
in its possession the proof of loss
containing complete schedule of prop
erty. together with their value; and
all information concerning amount of
damaged goods and their value, which
it now has, in negotiating with the
plaintiff as 1t did with not mention of
disclaiming liability on account of
matters contained in special pleadings
and appearing before the referees
WITHOUT raising any question as to
their liability for whatever the refer
ees might determine the damage to
be were a waiver of its right to come
into court later, and defend under the
special pleadings filed by defendant.
The court is of the opinion that the
requested instruction was properly re-
fused as unsound as an entirety York
VS.. Athens, 80 Me, 50. Calling atten-
ton to one instance only. the refer
ence having been agreed upon. no wal
Yer could arise from a failure on the
part of defendant to raise the ques-
ton of it's liability before the referees
as this matter is not open before them.
Dunton vs. Insurance. Co, 1e4 Me-.
372, 376, S7S. But the request is ia
tally defective in that it takes the
question of waiver from the jury. Up
on this point Robinson VS.. Insurance
Co., 80 Me. 3S5, 3Ss, 800, 392. 1874 is
conclusive. See also Seed VS.. Lord,
IS Me. $50, 5s1; Stewart VS.. Leonard
103 Me-. 1928; Libby VS.. Haley, 81 Me,
331, S32. 3s3.
In regard to the motion for new
trial, it is sufficient to say that a care
full reading of the evidence discloses
no reason for disturbing the verdict.
Exceptions and motion overruled.
Received August 2Sth, 1914.
The following rescrjpts have also
been handed down from the law court
Androscosein County
John c. Woodrow VS.. Fitz Brother
Co. Rescript per curian:
No exceptions to the admission or
exclusion of evidence or to any part
of the charge of the presidingj Justice
are presented, and the parties do not
disagree as to the principles of law
which obtain in the case The verdict
rests upon questions of pure fact and
of such nature as to be peculiarly
within the province of the jury to A.
nally decide. We discover no error in
the result reached by that branch of
htec curt
Motion overruled.
Cumberland County
The National Furniture Co. VS..
Prussian National Insurance Co. Re-
script per Curtain.
This is an action upon policy of
insurance against loss by fire. The
jury found for defendant and the
plaintiff except to the ruling of the
court and moves upon the usual
grounds for q new trial.
The following instruction was re-
quested and denied and is the only
ground OF exception-that the acts of
the defendant, after it had all the in
formation it now possesses in regard to
the cause of the fire and had in its pos
session the proof of loss containing
complete schedule of property, togeth-
er with their value; and all informa-
ton concerning amount of damaged
goods and their value, which it now
has, in negotiating with the plaintiff
as 1t did with no mention of disclaim-
ing liability on account of matters
contained in special pleadings and ap-
pearing before the referees without
raising any question as to their La
bihty for whatever the referees might
determine the damage to be. were a
waiver OF it's right to come into court
later and defend under the special
pieadings filed by defendant.
Fhc court is of the opinion that the
requested instruction was properly
refused as unseund as an entirety
ork ". Athens, 80 Me-, 50. Calling at
tenuon to one instance only, the ref
erence having been agreed upon. no
waiver could arise from a failure on
the part of defendant 10 raise the
question of its liability before the ref
erees as this matter is not open be-
fore them. Dunton V. insurance ~
104 Me-, 372 3T6 97R p,,+ ~. -,
is fatally defective in that II takes tho
question OF waiver from the turv. I'm
on this point Robinson v. Insurance
Co, 20 Me-, Ss5. as9. 1872, 1894 is concI,,s.
rye. see also Seed " Lord, s6 Me-. $50.
eoi' stewart v. Leonard. 1oS Me-. 12S:
LIBBY v. Haley, 81 Me-. a31, as2, sss.
IN regard, to the motion for new
triai' II is sufficient to say that care
1ul reading of the evidence diseloses
no reason for disturbing the verdict.
nd