88 Ga. App. 434 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1953
1. Where an insurer agrees in an automobile casualty-insurance policy to pay any loss covered by the policy to two persons, a finance company and the purchaser of the automobile, as their interests may appear, the purchaser may maintain an action to recover for a loss covered by the terms of the policy. Johnson v. General Exchange Ins. Corp., 49 Ga. App. 780 (176 S. E. 840); Riley v. Federal Ins. Co., 60 Ga. App. 764 (5 S. E. 2d 246).
2. The question as to whether the finance company, to which is still owed a portion of the purchase price of the stolen automobile, is a necessary party to an action by the purchaser to recover the value of the automobile as a loss covered by the theft provision of the policy, and whether the petition is faulty for a nonjoinder of a party plaintiff, is not before us for determination, as such question is not raised by a general demurrer. Federal Land Bank of Columbia v. Forrester, 192 Ga. 446 (2) (15 S. E. 2d 517); Richter v. Richter, 202 Ga. 554 (4) (43 S. E. 2d 635, 173 A.L.R. 436).
3. The allegation that the plaintiff bought an automobile on a certain date, that the policy thereon was issued to her, and that on a certain date the automobile was stolen from her, is a sufficient allegation, as against a 'general demurrer, that at the time of the loss the plaintiff owned the automobile.
The petition alleged a cause of action as against a general demurrer (New Jersey Ins. Co. v. Rowell, 32 Ga. App. 16, 123 S. E. 38), and the court did not err in overruling the general demurrer.
Judgment affirmed.
