Mechanics Insurance v. Thompson
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Faulkner Circuit Court. Robert J. Lea, Judge. 1. The provisions in the application, which are made a part of the policy, are promissory warranties, upon the truth of which the validity of the policy depends. 11 Am. & Fug.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Faulkner Circuit Court. Robert J. Lea, Judge. 1. The provisions in the application, which are made a part of the policy, are promissory warranties, upon the truth of which the validity of the policy depends. 11 Am. & Fug. Fnc. of Law, p. 290 and notes; May on Insurance, p. 160, sec. 156 ; Wood on Insurance, p. 422, etc.; Arnold on Insurance, p. 587. 2. The testimony shows a failure to comply with these warranties, which must be literally kept, and their non-observance defeats a recovery on the policy. Authorities supra; Wood, Ins. secs. 179 and note, 180-1-2; Smith, Merc. Law, p.…
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
On the 14th of October, 1890, the Mechanics & Traders Insurance Company, by its policy of that date, insured the gin-house, gin-stand, other machinery and fixtures of H. L. Thompson against fire. The property insured was burned on the night of the 17th of December, 1890, about 11 o’clo’ck. To recover the loss sustained, Thompson brought this action against the insurance company. The defense set up was the breach of two warranties.
The policy made the assured’s application to the defendant for insurance a part thereof and a warranty. In this application are the following questions and answers :…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Southern Insurance v. WhiteSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1893
- Capital Fire Insurance v. KingSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Union Marine Insurance v. HighSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922