Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/45-s-w-832-628939358
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 10:31:42+00:00

Document:
Party Name: GERMAN INS. CO. v. PEARLSTONE ET AL.
Attorney: [18 Tex.Civ.App. 707] Oeland & Brown, for appellant. Alexander & Atkinson, for appellees.
Appeal from district court, McLennan county; Marshall Surratt, Judge.
Action by I. M. Pearlstone & Son against the German Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
[18 Tex.Civ.App. 707] Oeland & Brown, for appellant.
Alexander & Atkinson, for appellees.
This is a suit upon two policies of fire insurance. The plaintiffs recovered in the court below, and the defendant has appealed.
4th day of October, 1895, the said defendant, in consideration of the sum of $35 to it in hand paid, executed and delivered to plaintiffs its policy of insurance No. 76,311, wherein and whereby it insured these plaintiffs in the sum of $1,000 against loss by fire on the goods, wares, and merchandise hereinbefore described, and plaintiffs show that they have complied with all the conditions of said policies. It is further shown to the court that about the 19th day of August, 1896, while said polices were in full force [18 Tex.Civ.App. 708] and effect, the property insured thereby was, without default of these plaintiffs, destroyed by fire, and on the 5th day of October, 1896, full proofs of loss were made out by plaintiffs and forwarded to defendant, and received and accepted by said defendant, no objection being made thereto. Defendant is notified to produce said proofs of loss on trial hereof. Plaintiffs show to the court that by reason of the premises defendant became liable and promised to pay these plaintiffs the sum of $3,500 in accordance with the terms of said policies, but though often requested, they have hitherto failed and refused, and still fail and refuse, to pay the same, or any part thereof, whereby these plaintiffs have been damaged in the full sum of $4,000." Fire insurance is a contract of indemnity; and, unless the owner of the policy is also owner of or interested in the property covered by it at the time the latter is destroyed by fire, he sustains no loss, and therefore cannot recover upon the policy. This point is well settled by the authorities, and this court has recently ruled upon it. Insurance Co. v. Davis, 45 S.W. 604, and authorities there cited. And it must be conceded that the petition in this case does not, in express terms, allege that the property belonged to the plaintiffs at the time it was destroyed by fire. However, the petition does aver that the defendant insured the plaintiffs against loss by fire "on their stock of merchandise, consisting of dry goods," etc. This constitutes an averment of ownership of the property by plaintiffs, and it is not expressly limited to any particular date. Besides, the petition charges that the policies were in force and effect at the time of the fire, and, as they could not have been in that condition (if the policies were then owned by plaintiffs) unless they had an interest in the property, the latter fact is argumentatively or impliedly charged. Furthermore, the petition charges that the defendant insured the plaintiffs against loss of their property by fire; that it was destroyed by fire; and thereupon the defendant became liable to the plaintiffs for the sum of $3,500, the face of the policies. Now, the liability alleged could not exist unless the plaintiffs owned or had an insurable interest in the property at the time it was burned; and the averment of such liability, in connection with the other averments referred to, indicate that the petition was constructed upon the theory that the plaintiffs owned the property at the time of its destruction, and that it was intended that it should be so understood. Dist. Ct. Rule 17 (20 S.W. xii.) prescribes that in passing upon a general exception every reasonable intendment arising upon the pleading excepted to shall be indulged in favor of its sufficiency, and that rule has been often applied. In view of this rule, we hold that the petition was not obnoxious to a general demurrer, and in support of our ruling we cite Pennington v. Schwartz, 70 Tex. 211, 8 S.W. 32; Loper v. Telegraph Co., 70 Tex. 694, 8 S.W. 600; Wynne v. Bank, 82 Tex. 378, 17 S.W. 918; Rutherford v. Smith, 28 Tex. 322; Cattle Co. v. Carroll, 63 Tex. 49; and Pan Handle Nat. Bank v. Security Co. (decided by this court at this term) 44 S.W. 15.
[18 Tex.Civ.App. 709] 2. The property insured was a stock of merchandise, alleged to be worth over $20,000. The plaintiffs were, when the policies were issued and the fire occurred, retail merchants; and their stock of merchandise was constantly shifting, goods coming in by purchases frequently made, and going out through the medium of daily sales. Under these circumstances it was impossible for the plaintiffs to furnish a correct inventory or itemized list of the property destroyed by the fire, and the court did not err in overruling the defendant's special exception addressed to the petition because it was not accompanied by such inventory or list.
year 1895, and the petty cash book, covering the time from October 21, 1895, to the end of that year. One of the policies was issued September 3 and the other October 4, 1895, and they were both in force when the fire occurred. So it appears that for seven months of the time appellees produced their full set of books, and for nine months of the time they produced the ledger, journal, and petty cash book; while for 45 days of the first and 17 days of the second policy they produced only the ledger and journal. The question propounded to the witnesses impliedly states that the latter two were the only books covering the life of any part of either policy that was produced.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.