Case Name: FIDELITY-PHŒNIX FIRE INS. CO. v. O'BANNON
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-06-25
Citations: 178 S.W. 731
Docket Number: No. 1468
Parties: FIDELITY-PHŒNIX FIRE INS. CO. v. O’BANNON.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 178
Pages: 731–733

Head Matter:
FIDELITY-PHŒNIX FIRE INS. CO. v. O’BANNON.
(No. 1468.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.
June 25, 1915.
On Motion of Plaintiff in Error, for a Rehearing, June 10, 1915.
Further Rehearing Denied July 1, 1915.)
1. Appeal and Error <@=>511 — Bills of Exceptions — Record.
Assignments of error to rulings on testimony, shown, as recited therein, by certain bills of exceptions, cannot be considered; such bills of exceptions not being in the record.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2319 — 232Í; Dec. Dig. <©=> 511.]
On Motion of Plaintiff in Error for a Rehearing.
2. Appeal and Error <@=>2 — Questions Reviewable — Rulings on Instructions — Exceptions.
Noncompliance of a party with Rev. St. 1911, arts. 1971, 2061, as amended by Acts 33d Leg. c. 59, § 3 (Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 19Í4, arts. 1971, 2061), as to exceptions, does not affect his right to review of rulings on re-' quested instructions; the trial having been before the act went into effect.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3-7, 1882, 2421; Dec. Dig. <@=>2.]
3. Insurance <@=>282 — Forfeiture—Title or Interest of Insured.
Provision of’ a policy on a dwelling that it shall be void if the interest of insured be other than unconditional and sole ownership, or if the building be on ground not owned by insured in foe simple, refers to the date of its issuance, and not to subsequent changes.
TEd. Note. — For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. §§ 601-635; Dec. Dig. <@=3282.]
4. Insurance <@=3328 — Forfeiture—Change in Interest or Title.
The provision of a policy on a dwelling that it shall be void if any change takes place in the interest or title of the dwelling applies to a change of interest, giving insured a greater temptation to destroy the building, and so not where he sells the land, retaining title_ to _ the building, with right to remove in a certain time, half of the purchase price not to be paid till the removal.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. §§ 794-822, 825; Dec. Dig. <@=3328.]
5. Insurance <@=3500 — Yalued Policy — “Personal Property.”
“Personal property,” in the proviso to Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 4874, declaring a fire policy, in case of total loss, a liquidated demand for its full amount, provided, this shall not apply to personal property, is used in its general sense of that which may be carried about with the person, having reference to the real character of the property, and not in its tech-' nical legal sense, having reference to the title by which it is held, and so does not apply to a dwelling which one owns on the land of another, with right of removal.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. §§ 1275, 1276; Dec. Dig. <@=3500.
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Personal Property.]
Error to Grayson County Court; J. Q. Adamson, Judge.
Action by R. A. O’Bannon against the Fidelity-Phoenix Fire Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Wm. Thompson, of ’Dallas, and John S. Patterson, of Austin, for plaintiff in error. Jones & Hassell, of Sherman, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
WILLSON, C. J.
Defendant in error owned certain land in the city of Sherman. He also owned a frame dwelling house situated on the land. December 21, 1912, he 'sold and conveyed the land to the trustees of a school district. He did not sell the house, but, retaining ownership thereof, agreed to move it from the land before February 1, 1913. The house was destroyed by fire January 17, 1913, before it had been moved. At the time it was so destroyed it was insured in the sum of $700 against loss by fire, by a policy issued by plaintiff in error February 24, 1912. By the suit resulting in the judgment from which this appeal is prosecuted, defendant in error sought and was awarded a recovery on the policy of the sum stated.
In its first assignment plaintiff in error complains of the refusal by the court of its request in writing to instruct the jury to find in its favor ;• and in its second assignment it complains of the action of the court in peremptorily instructing the jury to find for defendant in error. Because of the failure of plaintiff in error to comply with the requirements of articles 1971 and 2061, Vernon's Statutes, the assignments cannot be considered. Railway Co. v. Wilson, 176 S. W. 619, decided by this court April 15, 1915, not yet officially reported; Railway Co. v. Skeen, 174 S. W. 655; James v. Golson, 174 S. W. 688.
In the third and fourth assignments complaint is made of the action of the court in sustaining objections to and excluding certain testimony, as shown, it is recited in the assignments, "in defendant's bill of exceptions No. 1" and its "bill of exceptions No. 2." The bills of exceptions referred to are not in the record sent to this court. Therefore we cannot undertake to determine whether the trial court erred as charged or not.
The judgment is affirmed.
<@=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered' Digests and Indexes
<g=»Por other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes