Opinion
October, 1895.
Stewart Macklin, for appellant.
Hyland Zabriskie, for respondent.
We have given this case very careful study, and think that the various objections claimed by the appellant have been met, and the case was correctly submitted to the jury.
The complaint was proper in form, and sufficiently complied with claim of appellant. Code Civ. Proc. § 533.
The authority cited by appellant as controlling this case, to wit, Van Wickle v. Mech. Traders' Ins. Co., 97 N.Y. 350, 353, is distinguished in the case of Singleton v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 132 id. 298, 303, 304, and in our judgment meets this case.
We find no errors, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.
VAN WYCK, J., concurs.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.