From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Royal Ins. Co., Limited v. Martinolich

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Feb 6, 1950
179 F.2d 704 (5th Cir. 1950)

Opinion

No. 12949.

February 6, 1950.

R.A. Wallace, Gulfport, Miss., for appellant.

S.E. Morse, Gulfport, Miss., Louis Hengen, Biloxi, Miss., for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and McCORD and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.


As the appellant did, in Home Insurance Co. of New York v. Sherrill, 5 Cir., 174 F.2d 945, this appellant comes here complaining solely of the insufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict and judgment that plaintiff was entitled to a recovery under the policy.

Here, as there, appellant urges that the testimony of the plaintiff, that before any water damage took effect, the damage to the full amount insured had already been done by the wind, is not only refuted by all the other testimony, but made incredible by the undisputed facts, so that it cannot support the verdict.

Here, as there, we hold that the question upon the record was a question of fact for the jury, and that the judgment must be

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Royal Ins. Co., Limited v. Martinolich

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Feb 6, 1950
179 F.2d 704 (5th Cir. 1950)
Case details for

Royal Ins. Co., Limited v. Martinolich

Case Details

Full title:ROYAL INS. CO., LIMITED v. MARTINOLICH

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Feb 6, 1950

Citations

179 F.2d 704 (5th Cir. 1950)

Citing Cases

Parmer v. Utah Home Fire Insurance Company

This is well settled law. See Fireman's Ins. Co. v. Weatherman, Tex.Civ.App., 193 S.W.2d 247; Home Ins. Co.,…

Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J. v. Schulte

Appellant did not make such a request, the sole argument being that the loss was not covered by this policy.…