{ "id": 1507858, "name": "Planters' Mutual Insurance Company v. Loyd", "name_abbreviation": "Planters' Mutual Insurance v. Loyd", "decision_date": "1903-06-20", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "292", "last_page": "294", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "71 Ark. 292" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "72 Hun, 519", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Hun,", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "68 Minn. 335", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 1670452 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/minn/68/0335-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 Barb. 459", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Barb.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "18 Md. 44", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Md.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "3 Hughes, 272", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Hughes", "case_ids": [ 6096472 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/f-cas/6/0033-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 Pa. St. 348", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "42 la. 14", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "11 Kan. 55", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Kan.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "1 Met. 523", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Met.", "case_ids": [ 11268992 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ky/58/0523-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 Ark. 548", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1900481 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/38/0548-01" ] }, { "cite": "53 S. W. 442", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "83 Me. 362", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Me.", "case_ids": [ 623134 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/me/83/0362-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 Atl. 304", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "22 N. E. 430", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "120 Ind. 554", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1375184 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ind/120/0554-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 Cush. 449", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cush.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "14 Gray, 209", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gray", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "29 Gratt. 612", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gratt.", "case_ids": [ 6733396 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/va/70/0542-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 Hill, 49", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Hill,", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "1 Allen, 296", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Allen", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "17 Allen, 240", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Allen", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "24 Ark. 251", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8726836 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/24/0251-01" ] }, { "cite": "23 Ark. 215", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1866007 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/23/0215-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 Ark. 139", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8727518 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/11/0139-01" ] }, { "cite": "29 Ark. 448", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1882940 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/29/0448-01" ] }, { "cite": "35 Ohio. St. 617", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ohio St.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "64 Ark. 590", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1907323 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/64/0590-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 la. 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "57 N. Y. 505", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "30 N. Y. 163", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "83 Mich. 512", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "65 Ark. 54", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 609275 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/65/0054-01" ] }, { "cite": "35 Ind. 89", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "64 N. W. 16", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "116 N. Y. 106", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2225922 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny/116/0106-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 Ark. 202", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "52 Ark. 257", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1913318 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/52/0257-01" ] }, { "cite": "53 S. W. Rep. 442", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "38 Mich. 548", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1337648 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mich/38/0548-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 Ark. 584", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1152575 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/67/0584-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 Me. 362", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Me.", "case_ids": [ 623134 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/me/83/0362-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 Atl. 304", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "120 Ind. 554", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1375184 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ind/120/0554-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 439, "char_count": 6216, "ocr_confidence": 0.507, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.2453161366471976e-07, "percentile": 0.7805968610525169 }, "sha256": "4a48b9f05d8d6d91fca6105d6710066f6021065885b5142299e844e2b9f2dbcf", "simhash": "1:36d4744a977f1470", "word_count": 1136 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:01:48.196038+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Planters' Mutual Insurance Company v. Loyd." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Wood, J.\nThis is the second appeal in this case. The opinion in the first appeal is found in Planters\u2019 Mutual Ins. Co. v. Loyd, 67 Ark. 584. The suit is on a policy of fire insurance. We reversed the cause on the first appeal because the assured represented that the property insured was his property, when in fact it was the property of his wife. The representation was a warranty, and part of the contract of insurance. This and other grounds of forfeiture were urged at the second trial, and are presented on this appeal, but it suffices to say of these that the proof is sufficient to show that the forfeiture on these grounds was waived by the conduct of the company\u2019s adjuster. When the cause was here before, we did not pass upon the question as to whether or not the husband had an insurable interest in his wife\u2019s property, for the reason that the cause had to be reversed on another ground, and we did not know what the proof might develop on another trial. The proof on the last trial shows that the property was insured as the property of appellee, but the fact is the title was in his wife, and the property belonged to her. The appellant by request for instructions raised the issue that the husband can not insure in his own name the property of his wife.\nArt. 9, sec. 7 of the constitution provides: \u201cThe real and personal property of any femme covert in this state, acquired either before or after marriage, whether by gift, grant, inheritance, devise or otherwise, shall, so long as she may choose, be and remain her separate estate and property, and may be devised, bequeathed, or conveyed by her the same as if she were a femme sole, and the same shall not be subject to the debts of her husband.\u201d Sand. & H. Dig. \u00a7 4940.\nIn Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Montague, 38 Mich. 548, Judge Cooley, speaking for the court, said: \u201cBut such a doctrine (that the husband can insure his wife\u2019s property) is at war with the fundamental principles of insurance, which require that a person shall have an insurable interest before he can insure; a policy issued where there is no such interest is void, and it is immaterial that it is taken in good faith and with full knowledge. The policy of the law does not admit of such insurance, however willing the parties may be to enter into it. The doctrine of waiver has obviously nothing to do with such a case.\u201d\nUnder statutes similar to ours the authorities generally hold that the husband has no insurable interest in his wife\u2019s property. German-American Ins. Co. v. Paul, 53 S. W. Rep. 442; Traders\u2019 Ins. Co. v. Newman, 120 Ind. 554; Clark v. Dwelling-House Ins. Co., 17 Atl. 304; Trott v. Ins. Co., 83 Me. 362; Eminence Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jesse, 1 Metc. (Ky.) 523; Ostrander, Fire Ins. \u00a7 61, p. 212; 2 Joyce, Ins. \u00a7 1049.\nThere are authorities which hold that the husband has an insurable interest in the property of his wife, but these are usually based upon statutes giving him some interest in his wife\u2019s property upon condition in the relations of the parties to each other, or which under the common law would give an interest in his wife\u2019s property. See authorities in appellant\u2019s brief.\nIn this case there was no curtesy, initiate or consummate, shown. No recovery can be had for the personal property, for the reason that the contract of insurance was entire, under the decisions of this court in McQueeny v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 52 Ark. 257; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Public Parks Co., 63 Ark. 202.\nJudgment reversed, and judgment for appellant.", "type": "majority", "author": "Wood, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Jos. W. House and M. House, for appellant.", "L. A. Byrne, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Planters' Mutual Insurance Company v. Loyd.\nOpinion delivered June 20, 1903.\n1. Insurance \u2014 Wife's Land. \u2014 Under Const. 1874, art. 9, \u00a7 7, providing \u201cthat the real and personal estate of any femme covert in this state * * * shall, so long as she may choose-, he and remain her separate estate and property,\u201d a husband, by' virtue of his relation to his wife, has no insurable interest in her land. (Page 293.)\n2. Same \u2014 Indivisibility of Contract. \u2014 Where a husband took out a policy of fire insurance on his wife\u2019s land and on his personal property, the contract of insurance being indivisible, he cannot recover for loss of the personal property where he had no insurable interest in. his wife\u2019s lands. (Page 294.)\nAppeal from Little Piiver Circuit Court.\nWill P. Feazel, Judge.\nEeversed.\nT. M. Loyd, took out a policy of insurance in the Planters\u2019 Mutual Insurance Association for the sum of $1,000 upon his dwelling house and certain furniture therein against loss by fire. The facts are stated in the report of this case on a former appeal. See :Planters\u2019 Mutual Insurance Co. v. Loyd, G7 Ark. 584.\nJos. W. House and M. House, for appellant.\nIn order to establish a waiver of a forfeiture, the proof must show a distinct recognition of liability after a knowledge of the forfeiture. 116 N. Y. 106. A mere offer to compromise can not be construed as a waiver. 20 111. App. 4-36; 64 N. W. 16; 35 Ind. 89; 65 Ark. 54; 83 Mich. 512. There must be either consideration or estoppel to base a waiver upon. 30 N. Y. 163; 57 N. Y. 505. If appellee was, according to his own statement, excused from making proofs of loss by the denial of liability by company\u2019s agent, his act in making them was a mere voluntary act, and their acceptance did not amount to a waiver of stipulations in the application and policy. 65 la. 469; 64 Ark. 590;.65 Ark. 54; 90 Tena. 754, 755; 35 Ohio. St. 617. The court erred in giving instructions two and three asked by appellee, and in refusing to give instructions one, three and eight asked by appellant. 29 Ark. 448; 11 Ark. 139; 23 Ark. 215; 24 Ark. 251. The doctrine of waiver of forfeiture has no application to mutual insurance. 17 Allen, 240; 1 Allen, 296; 7 Hill, 49; 1 Mete. 523; 29 Gratt. 612; 14 Gray, 209; 10 Cush. 449. Loyd had no insurable interest in his wife\u2019s property, and the policy was therefore void. 120 Ind. 554; s. c. 22 N. E. 430; 17 Atl. 304; 83 Me. 362; 53 S. W. 442; 38 Ark. 548; Ostrander, Eire Ins. 212; 1 Met. 523; 11 Kan. 55; 18 La. An. 630; 42 la. 14; 50 Pa. St. 348; 3 Hughes, 272; 18 Md. 44; 42 Barb. 459-; 1 Mete. (Ky.) 523; 10 B. & C. 724. Recovery is also preceded by false swearing in proofs of loss. 68 Minn. 335; 72 Hun, 519.\nL. A. Byrne, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0292-01", "first_page_order": 310, "last_page_order": 312 }