Riley v. Motorists Mutual Ins.

It is important to bear in mind that the single question for determination is whether there was a “theft” *18of the Riley automobile within the meaning, intent and coverage of the “theft” clause of the insurance policy, so as to entitle Riley to recover the value of the automobile from his insurer.

In the case of Toms v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 146 Ohio St., 39, 63 N. E. (2d), 909, it is said in the third paragraph of the syllabus:

“In an insurance contract insuring against the ‘theft’ of an automobile, the term ‘theft’ comprehends the wilful taking or appropriation of one person’s automobile by…