Legal Opinion
Hughes v. . Mercantile Mutual Ins. Co.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided December 9, 1873PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
It was incumbent upon the plaintiff, before he could recover for the loss of the bark "St. Mary," to show that the contract of insurance related to that vessel.
The policy of insurance was upon the bark "Empress, or by whatever other name or names the vessel is or shall be named or called." The bark lost was the "St. Mary," but the mistake in the name was no obstacle to a recovery, if in point of fact the underwriter, when the policy was issued, knew the true name, or intended to insure the particular vessel which was lost. (1 Arnould on Ins., 30, 170; 1 Duer on Ins., 172; Sea Ins. Co.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Rowley v. . the Empire Insurance Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1867
- Plumb v. . Cattaraugus Co. Mutual Insurance Company.New York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Hazard v. New England Marine Ins.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1832
- Hammond v. AllenU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island · 1836
- Sea Insurance v. FowlerNew York Supreme Court · 1839
3Cited by6 opinions
- Jersey Ins. Co. v. RoddamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1951
- Alabama Mutual Fire Insurance v. MinchenerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1901
- Mattoon Manufacturing Co. v. Oshkosh Mutual Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1887
- Singer v. KarronCity of New York Municipal Court · 1937
- Michigan College of Medicine v. CharlesworthMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.