Charles Belock Et Al. v. State Mutual Fire

By Supreme Court of Wisconsin

Release : 1934-10-02

Genre : Law, Books, Professional & Technical

Kind : ebook

(0 ratings)
[1, 2] This is an action of contract upon a policy of fire insurance covering certain property owned by the plaintiff Belock and mortgaged to the plaintiff Crampton, the loss being payable to the latter as his interest might appear. The plea is that the fire was caused by the fraudulent act of Belock, in that he wilfully burned or caused to be burned the insured building. This defense was available as against both Belock, the mortgagor, and Crampton, the mortgagee (Girard v. Vermont Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 103 Vt. 330, 334, 154 Atl. 666), but the burden of proving it was upon the defendant. Cummings v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, 101 Vt. 73, 85, 142 Atl. 82. The defendant moved for a directed verdict, but the motion was denied, subject to its exception. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, which the court, on de- fendants motion, set aside. Both plaintiffs and defendant have filed bills of exceptions, and there are two questions for determination: (1) Whether the court erred in setting the verdict aside, and (2) whether the court erred in overruling the motion for a directed verdict.

Charles Belock Et Al. v. State Mutual Fire

By Supreme Court of Wisconsin

Release : 1934-10-02

Genre : Law, Books, Professional & Technical

Kind : ebook

(0 ratings)
[1, 2] This is an action of contract upon a policy of fire insurance covering certain property owned by the plaintiff Belock and mortgaged to the plaintiff Crampton, the loss being payable to the latter as his interest might appear. The plea is that the fire was caused by the fraudulent act of Belock, in that he wilfully burned or caused to be burned the insured building. This defense was available as against both Belock, the mortgagor, and Crampton, the mortgagee (Girard v. Vermont Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 103 Vt. 330, 334, 154 Atl. 666), but the burden of proving it was upon the defendant. Cummings v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, 101 Vt. 73, 85, 142 Atl. 82. The defendant moved for a directed verdict, but the motion was denied, subject to its exception. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, which the court, on de- fendants motion, set aside. Both plaintiffs and defendant have filed bills of exceptions, and there are two questions for determination: (1) Whether the court erred in setting the verdict aside, and (2) whether the court erred in overruling the motion for a directed verdict.

advertisement

More By Supreme Court of Wisconsin