*1 '28

plaint tó far as the decree price and amount Grahams land concerned, acres penalized. They thought they five purchased acre; an awarded them 1.9 acres only $50 price notwithstanding fixed the acre; $100 they have and assign no error. cross Judgment' affirmed.

Mr.. and Mr. Hilliard Chief 14,516.

No. Company City River New Insurance York Militello. (88 567) February Rehearing Decided denied March Lindsey Jr., Mr. K. D. Messrs. Wolfe, & Larwill, Dick, Mr. A. Messrs. N. Pershing, Nye, Bosworth for plaintiff in error. Hutchinson, in error. Frank H. Hall, En Banc.

Mr. Justice Bakke delivered the the court. *2 a suit on a fire insurance contract and be This fore us on a former .occasion. v.Co. Militello, 100 Colo. 343, 67 625. A retrial was resulting plaintiff, had for which defend ant seeks to have reversed. In view of fact that the .the litigation years, matter has been in for over six feel we that it promptly applica . now should be decided on the supersedeas, legal principles tion for a the in since by having volved—the law of the case been established relatively simple. our former —are As former indicates, Militello, plaintiff (Mili error, of below, was arson convicted 527), burning tello very property on which he now in seeks recover to In surance. tello, brief North Mili River Ins. Co. v. company counsel for the insurance advanced proposition: this submit, “We therefore, that this adopt Eagle, rule of case of Star British Ins. Dominions Va. Heller, S. [that policy burning conviction of the holder of property recovery policy] the insured is a bar Royal or the rule of of the case Ins. Co., [that prima N. Y. 310, 179 N. E. 711 such conviction is facie evidence of facts civil suit to involved, policy].” recover response

In to alternative, submitted we adopted the rule announced in re Schindler judgment, and versed remanded cause “for such proceedings may harmony further with the expressed.” herein views The trial court carried out our letter. instructions counsel for fact, company, insurance “wrote their All own ticket.” requested approved given their by instructions were and objection. They liberally court without company’s objection No favor. was made testimony ver- detailed his of Militello which destroyed concerning sion of circumstances the fire Evidently starting property, denied it. insured and jury story accord- him verdict believed his ingly. pub- pause not to discuss do here

We prior policy. lic in our considered feature We opinion, fully above it is authorities discussed however, observation: Coun- We, mentioned. make this hearing quoted from sel on the former for the Process,” “The written Nature of the Judicial book following, page found the late Justice Cardozo, “ permit refusing 43: The served interest social greater profit than served crime legal rights preservation and enforcement ownership.” pronouncement does author honor. *3 joined Judge yet in he with 1921; 1932, It written in was opinion rendering in the Schindler case. Pound in philosophized; in the case he In his book spoke in accordance case is decided with law. This legal view.

Judgment affirmed. Mr. Justice Knous, Bock and

Mr. Justice Justice only, view in conclusion it concur opinion that the law the case was settled P. Militello, 343, 100 Colo. 67 Co. (2d) Frangís Bouck É. dissents

Mr. in part. concurs

specially part, dissenting but Mr. Bouck, Francis concurring. specially opinion herein bases affirm far as opinion ground upon in North River that the ance (2d) stated P. 343, 625, 67 Colo. Militello, Ins. Co. v. again then—and is now the case” which was “the law approve heartily return I I us, —before principle of and wholesome court to the reasonable seemed deliber court case,” which this “the law of ately Frank, Black Diamond abandon dissenting (2d) in the as shown Colo. respectively. pages 533 and right court to reconsider of this However, the department the effect which case future unrelated the evidence Militello in. fully reserved. is, it, I take conviction, criminal as open I at bar, one in case Were the say hesitate to disclosed circumstances under beyond of arson conviction criminal that the defendant’s de- of law a a matter was not as reasonable doubt burning charged the in- of the unlawful termination be- am inclined in the civil case. surance had ac- conviction which was lieve de- cording land—and law the between people of state of Colo- Militello fendant and all decisive as conclusive rado—should showing purposes, of a. sufficient in the absence all illegality prove recognized grounds in the crim- some present was instance verdict which inal verdict, illegal law- but declared to have been not so shown in Militello this court’s affirmance ful 519, establishing general seems rule enough important consideration to demand argument opportunity, when the the earliest en banc certain of a rule the selection not, as here, urge party binding saw fit to particular because case *4 properly argument that this could brief and its out of alternative rules of two several choose My jurisdictions. obtaining concurrence is other accordingly, as to other dissent matters limited discussed. not be need