Court Opinion

ID: 8047782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 04:01:21.229201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:37:34.729946
License: Public Domain

Hibbard, J.
I concur in the result which is reached in the foregoing opinion, but do not think it can be sustained upon the ground stated. It seems to me that, upon a true construction of the plaintiff’s application, the insurance was not on the whole house, but on the undivided half winch the plaintiff owned in fee simple, the value of which was found by the jury oto be more than sufficient to justify the sum insured upon it. If this view is correct, the question, so ably discussed in the opinion, does not arise. The provisions of the application which tend to favor this construction are not contained in the statement of facts preceding the opinion ; and it would not be useful to occupy space in reciting or considering them, nor in assigning reasons for disagreeing with the doctrine of the opinion.