DocketNumber: No. 11,725
Citation Numbers: 80 Ind. App. 346, 140 N.E. 916, 1923 Ind. App. LEXIS 132
Judges: Remy
Filed Date: 10/5/1923
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/18/2024
Action on policy of theft insurance to recover for the loss of an automobile. Trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiffs, appellees in this court.
On the trial, it became necessary for appellees to prove that one Mannan was the local agent of appellant company at the time of, and following, the loss of the automobile. Mannan was permitted as a witness for appellee to testify that he was such agent. This was not error. Although an agency cannot be proved by declarations of the agent, nevertheless the agent, otherwise a competent witness, may testify to the fact of agency. Hale v. Hale (1920), 74 Ind. App. 405, 126 N. E. 692; Phillips v. Poulter (1903), 111 Ill. App. 330; Lawall v. Groman (1897), 180 Pa. 532, 37 Atl. 98, 57 Am. St. 662.
Other reasons for a new trial are not, under the rules of this court, presented by appellant’s brief.
It is urged by appellant that the trial court erred in overruling its motion in arrest of judgment. The sole reason in support of the motion relates to the sufficiency of the complaint. No demurrer was filed. It has frequently been held by the courts of appeal of this state, and is the law, that when the sufficiency of a pleading is first called in question after verdict by a motion in arrest of judgment, all reason
Affirmed.