The substance of the averments in the plaintiff’s complaint is: that in January, 1893, she entered into a contract with the insurance company defendant, that in consideration of thirty dollars and fifty-six cents previously paid to it by the plaintiff, it, such company, would insure her against loss or damage by fire on certain .specified property until noon of March 20, 1895, in the sum of .'$3,400; loss, if any, to be paid to Arthur W. Sherman as mortgagee, ■as his interest might appear, the balance to be paid to the plaintiff — the further terms of the insurance, and of the policy to be issued, to be similar to those contained in the form of policy known as ," Standard Fire Insurance Policy of the State of New Yorkthat isuch contract was to be at once reduced to the form of a written policy and delivered to her by said company ; that subsequently, on February 26, 1893, a fire occurred which destroyed the property so insured, and that she sustained loss and damage to the amount of .$2,900.
We must assume upon this appeal that all the averments of fact in the complaint are true. (Sheridan v. Jackson,
It is further claimed by the plaintiff that after the fire she was induced by the fraudulent representations of an agent of the defendant to abandon and settle this claim for $3,400 which she had thus acquired against the company, and in lieu thereof to take $1,000 and release and discharge the company from all further liability thereon. She avers that she received from such company such $1,000 by its payment to Sherman as mortgagee, and that she did execute and deliver to defendant a release and discharge of all her claim under such contract.
She now brings this action to set aside and vacate such settlement and release, and to recover from the company the whole amount justly due her by virtue of such contract. She has not repaid to the company the $1,000 so received, but in her complaint she asks that the amount thereof be credited and allowed to the company upon the amount so due and owing to her. The trial court held that the plaintiff could not maintain the action without restoring to the company the $1,000 so received by her, and dismissed the com
We must conclude that the opening of counsel (which in this case we must assume stated the same facts that are averred in the complaint [See Kley v. Heady,
The .judgment must be reversed, and' a new trial granted, costs to abide the event.
All concurred.
Judgment reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event.
