Davis v. St. Paul Mercury & Indemnity Co.

The defendant’s exceptive assignments of error present two questions for decision: (1) Is there evidence, sufficient to be submitted to a jury, tending to show that plaintiff sustained a loss by theft, and (2) did the court err in declining to submit the issue tendered?

Decision of the first question requires an interpretation of the provision “mysterious disappearance of any insured property shall be presumed to be due to theft” incorporated in the policy as a part of the definition of theft.

Under the old policies it was not necessary for the insured to offer direct proof of the theft. He…