Miller v. Consolidated Patrons & Farmers Mutual Insurance
Supreme Court of Iowa
•Appeal from Buchanan District Court. — Hon. P. C. Platt, Judge. Plaintiee held a policy of insurance in defendant company on certain buildings, together with personal property. He suffered a loos by fire and bdings this action to recover the amount thereof.
Read the full summary
•Appeal from Buchanan District Court. — Hon. P. C. Platt, Judge. Plaintiee held a policy of insurance in defendant company on certain buildings, together with personal property. He suffered a loos by fire and bdings this action to recover the amount thereof. After ■ plaintiff’s evidence was all in, defendant asked and was refused a verdict in its favor! Upon defendant then declining to introduce any testimony, the court instructed the jury to return a verdict in plaintiff’s favor for $2,508, which was accordingly done. Prom a judgment rendered on such verdict, defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtWaterman, J.
*215•3 We have so far considered the case without reference to the special authority given the adjuster by the adoption ■of the motion on January 3, 1898, in which the matter of settlement was left with Diehl. Defendant’s claim as to this matter is that Diehl’s term of office was about to expire, and, as he was familiar with the ease, this motion was adopted so that the matter might remain in his charge. It is true that a successor to Diehl had'been elected, who had not yet gone into office; and there is some ground for defendant’s claim that one purpose of the motion was to leave the matter in…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Commonwealth Insurance v. SolomanSuperior Court of Delaware · 1923
- Craig v. LeeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
- Hemmer-Miller Development Co. v. Hudson InsuranceSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1934