Schindler v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
Joseph Schindler v. The United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
This action was brought to recover upon a policy issued by the defendant to the plaintiff insuring the plaintiff against “ Direct loss by burglary, larceny or theft.”
On the morning of February 9, 1904, the plaintiff’s wife placed a bag containing jewelry in a closet. She locked the *533 closet, but left the key in the door. She was not at the house in the afternoon until about four-thirty or five o’clock. The servant in the employ of the plaintiff was also out during this afternoon and returned about half an hour before the plaintiff’s wife. At about eight o’clock in the evening, the plaintiff’s wife again went out. When she returned, the bag of jewelry, which she swears she left in the closet, was missing. There was no evidence upon the question of theft or burglary other than that recited above. The mere fact that the jewelry was missing from the closet where it had been placed was not, standing alone, sufficient to sustain a recovery under the terms of this policy.
The judgment is reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
Gildebsleeve and Dayton, JJ., concur; Seabury, J., taking no part.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.