-
I concur in the order affirming this cause. I am of the opinion the contract of insurance is divisible, and that the insurance of $900 upon the stock of *Page 638 merchandise is severable from the $1,100 upon the building, furniture, and fixtures, and the breach of the warranty pertaining to the first item would not invalidate that portion of the policy pertaining to the latter, so as to preclude recovery thereon. Ins. Co. v. McKinley,
14 Tex. Civ. App. 7 ,37 S.W. 606 ; Roberts v. Ins. Co.,13 Tex. Civ. App. 64 ,35 S.W. 955 ; Ins. Co. v. Green, 36 S.W. 143; Ins. Co. v. Tufts,20 Tex. Civ. App. 147 ,50 S.W. 180 ; Ins. Co. v. Brady, 41 S.W. 513; Ins. Co. v. Freeman, 33 S.W. 1091; Ins. Co. v. Luckett,12 Tex. Civ. App. 139 ,34 S.W. 173 .The word "entire," as used in the clause "this entire policy shall be null and void," does not warrant a change of interpretation of the contract from that stated in the cases cited. Miller v. Ins. Co.,
14 Okla. 81 ,75 P. 1121 , 65 L.R.A. 173, 2 Ann.Cas. 17.
Document Info
Docket Number: No. 342.
Citation Numbers: 169 S.W. 636
Judges: HIGGINS, J.
Filed Date: 7/2/1914
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023