Fekjar v. Iowa State Live Stock Insurance
North Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of Barnes County, Honorable J. A. Coffey, Judge. “It was the duty of the court to declare the legal effect of the proof of loss instead of leaving that question to the jury.” Thomas v. Burlington Ins. Co. 47 Mo. App. 169; Irving v. Ex. Eire Ins. Co. 14 N. Y. Supp. 507. “Parol evidence to supplement or validate lost proof is inadmissible.” Cannon v. Phooenix Ins. Co. 110 Ga. 563, 78 Am.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of Barnes County, Honorable J. A. Coffey, Judge. “It was the duty of the court to declare the legal effect of the proof of loss instead of leaving that question to the jury.” Thomas v. Burlington Ins. Co. 47 Mo. App. 169; Irving v. Ex. Eire Ins. Co. 14 N. Y. Supp. 507. “Parol evidence to supplement or validate lost proof is inadmissible.” Cannon v. Phooenix Ins. Co. 110 Ga. 563, 78 Am. St. Bep. 124. Under § 7452, Compiled Laws of 1913, it is not required that a reply be filed to an answer of this nature. “When the answer contains new matter constituting a…
1Concurrence
Christianson, Oh. L
(concurring). In the application for insurance it was stated that the horse had never had colic or indigestion. In its answer in this case the defendant averred that this was a representation of a material fact; that the defendant relied upon the representation in issuing the policy of insurance; that the representation was false and known by the plaintiff to so be at the time he made it ; that in truth and in fact the horse had been afflicted with one or more attacks of colic in the years 1916 and 1917. This was the only defense asserted. The only evidence submitted by the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Messersmith v. Supreme LodgeNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915