Citation Numbers: 16 S.W.2d 761, 229 Ky. 113
Judges: OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDGE LOGAN
Filed Date: 4/23/1929
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
Affirming.
These four cases were heard together in the circuit court, and have been consolidated in this court, and will be disposed of in one opinion. The appeal is from a judgment against the Connecticut Fire Insurance Company for $305.35, the North River Insurance Company for $203.36, the Fireman's Fund Insurance Company for $1,000, and the Hartford Fire Insurance Company for *Page 114 $1,000. Each judgment bears interest from September 17, 1925.
The questions involved on this appeal have been before this court on two former appeals.
Appellants rely on three grounds for reversal. It is insisted that the court erred in admitting incompetent evidence in that appellee was allowed to state the value and extent of his real estate holdings other than the property covered by the insurance policies, and that he was allowed to state the value of his machinery and raw material within the property covered by the policies. Accepting the statements in brief filed for the appellants as true, we find no prejudicial error in the admission of such evidence. The evidence was immaterial as the only issue submitted to the jury was as above stated, but there is no basis for the contention that it was prejudicial. It had nothing to do with the case one way or the other. Whether the value of the property was much greater than the amount of the insurance or otherwise was not an issue of fact, but the jury could not have been misled by such extrinsic and irrelevant evidence.
It is argued with force that the judgment should be reversed because of improper statements made by the attorney for appellee at the beginning of the trial, and in his argument to the jury at the conclusion of the trial. *Page 115 The language used as set out in the motion and grounds for a new trial is this:
"The fire insurance policies sued on here amounted to $7,000 and the defendant insurance companies have paid part of it, leaving the balance sued for aggregating about $2,500, with interest."
The statement appears to have been true, as some of the insurance companies did not contest their liability to a building and loan association in the interest of which the policies in part were written. $5,000 had been paid, leaving a balance due as indicated in the judgments. The court sustained an objection to the statement made by counsel for appellee at the beginning of the trial, but did not admonish the jury. He also sustained an objection to substantially the same argument at the conclusion of the trial, but likewise failed to admonish the jury. It cannot be well said that the attorney went outside of the record in making the statement as was the case in Dorsey et al. v. Proctor,
Another ground relied on is that the evidence does not support the verdict. There was evidence to support the contention of appellee, and we are not the tribunal to determine whether the jury should have believed that evidence, or should have believed the evidence offered by appellants.
Judgment affirmed.