Lopopolo

This was an action by appellee, a citizen of California, against appellant, a Maryland corporation, on a policy of automobile insurance issued by appellant to appellee. The case was tried to a jury. At the close of all the evidence, appellant moved for a directed verdict in its favor. The motion was denied, and appellant excepted. There was a verdict in appellee’s favor for $5,274.80, plus interest and attorney’s fees. From the judgment thereon, this appeal is prosecuted. The sole question presented is whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for a directed verdict.

The evidence establishes the following facts:

The policy was issued November 13, 1935, for the term of one year commencing on that date. Thereby, subject to the conditions and limitations therein set forth, appellant insured appellee:

The policy contained the following provisions, therein referred to as “insuring agreements

Other provisions of the policy, therein referred to as “conditions,” were as follows :

At all, times while the policy was in force, appellee’s son, Jack Lopopolo, had appellee’s permission to operate appellee’s automobile. Therefore, when the automobile was so operated by…