91 Kan. 307 | Kan. | 1914
The opinion of the court was delivered by
When this case was here before (Humble v. Insurance Co., 85 Kan. 140, 116 Pac. 472) it was held that the policy was not avoided by additional in
Complaint is made of sustaining an objection to a certain question on cross-examination of the owner touching a subsequent settlement of other alleged insurance and the refusal of an offer to prove by him an adjustment thereof. But an examination of the abstracts shows that the question and offer were so
■ The principal contentions on the trial concerned the questions of an incumbrance and additional insurance on the property, and the law as announced in the former decision applies to the findings and conclusion of the trial court and need not be restated.
,The judgment is affirmed.