(Download) "Ernest E. Fadler Co. v. Hesser." by Tenth Circuit Circuit Court of Appeals " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Ernest E. Fadler Co. v. Hesser.
- Author : Tenth Circuit Circuit Court of Appeals
- Release Date : January 05, 1948
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 56 KB
Description
George R. Read owned certain lots and a building thereon in Rainbow Park Addition to Spavinaw, Oklahoma. The premises were sometimes known as Fishermans Inn and sometimes as Rainbow Club. Delaware County Bank of Jay, Oklahoma, held a mortgage covering the premises. Boston Insurance Company, Fidelity-Phoenix Insurance Company, Michigan Fire and Marine Insurance Company, and Great American Insurance Company issued their separate policies insuring the building against loss or damage by fire. Each policy contained a standard mortgage clause, and each provided among other things that the company would not be liable for loss occurring while the hazard was increased by any means within the control or knowledge of the insured. The building was burned, and the companies brought this action against Read and the bank for a declaratory judgment. The cause of action pleaded in the complaint was that after the issuance of the policies the hazard was increased in that the use of the premises was changed from that of a restaurant or cafe and dance hall to a saloon where intoxicating liquor was sold in violation of law; that the insured burned the building or caused it to be burned; that the policies became null and void; that the defendants were threatening to bring separate suits upon the policies; and that unless the defendants were restrained from doing so, the companies would be required to defend a multitude of suits with the attending danger of conflict and confusion of outcome. Great American Insurance Company further pleaded that its original policy was cancelled and a new policy for a smaller amount issued and delivered prior to the time of the fire. The relief sought was an adjudication that the companies were not liable under their respective policies, and that the defendants be restrained from instituting or prosecuting suit or suits upon them. The defendants joined issue and by cross-complaint sought to recover upon the policies. Judgment was entered for the defendants on their cross- complaints, and plaintiffs appealed.