Price v. Home Insurance
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Henry Circuit Court. — Hon. James H. ' Lay, Judge. (1) The court erred in permitting plaintiff to prove that there was an understanding that the agent of the Herman of Freeport should procure the consent of the defendant to the insurance in the Herman of Freeport before the application should be sent in.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Henry Circuit Court. — Hon. James H. ' Lay, Judge. (1) The court erred in permitting plaintiff to prove that there was an understanding that the agent of the Herman of Freeport should procure the consent of the defendant to the insurance in the Herman of Freeport before the application should be sent in. Such understanding could not affect defendant; besides, Ross, by that arrangement, if it was made, .became the agent of plaintiff to procure defendant’s consent, and if he failed to do so and sent,in the application, it was plaintiff’s own act. Even if plaintiff thought at the…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
— This action is based on a fire insurance policy issued by defendant to plaintiff, containing a clause against further or additional insurance without *122the written consent of the defendant indorsed on the policy. Some time after the policy was delivered to plaintiff and shortly before the fire, the agent of another' insurance company called on plaintiff, who resided in the country, and solicited him to take further insurance. Plaintiff refused to do so, stating as a reason that he had a policy issued by this defendant and that he could not take out more insurance without first getting the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cincinnati, Wilmington and Zanesville Railroad v. IliffOhio Supreme Court · 1862
3Cited by3 opinions
- Blair v. Security BankSupreme Court of Virginia · 1905
- McCabe v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1939
- Martin v. WittyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904