Zinck v. Phœnix Ins.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Ghiekasaw Gvreuit Oourt. Action on a policy of insurance against loss or damage by fire. The policy contained a provision, which, was made a warranty, that any other insurance, whether valid or -invalid, would render the policy void, unless the consent of the company thereto was indorsed on the policy in writing. This was pleaded by defendant as a defense. There was no reply. Trial by jury, and judgment for the plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.
1Opinion of the Court
Seevees, Ch. J.
1. INSUR-Amanee1-61 lie insured0: evidence. -The plaintiffs offered evidence tending to show that the agent, by whom the insurance was effected, had notice that the property had been insured in the I r Cedar Rapids Insurance Company, and that the same was regarded by the plaintiffs as being invalid 01* void, because of the non-compliance, on their part, with certain conditions upon which the validity of the insurance depended.
*267It is clear, we think, from the evidence offered and afterward introduced, that it was a debatable question whether, at the time the policy in this case…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Hughes v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
- Phenix Ins. v. BachelderNebraska Supreme Court · 1891
- Parsons v. Grand Lodge of Ancient Order of United WorkmenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1899
- Brock v. Des Moines InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1895
- Ford v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1898
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.