Tom Love Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.

The complainant sued to recover upon a policy of indemnity against burglary of merchandise. The sharply controverted question of fact was whether the goods were taken by entry through force and violence evidenced by visible marks on the premises. The issues, submitted to the jury, were whether or not complainant’s warehouse was burglarized, and if so what goods were taken.

Under the charge, in which we find no prejudicial error, the jury found that the house was burglarized through forcible entry evidenced by visible marks of violence and goods of the value of $6300 carried away. The…