Wall v. East River Insurance
The Superior Court of New York City
This was an action on a policy of insurance against fire, and was tried before the chief justice and a jury, on the 18th Feb., 1853. By the terms of the policy the insurance was stated to be for $2000 11 on thei/r (the plaintiffs’) stock as rope manufacturers, their own, or held by them in trust or on commission, contained in the brick building with tin roof, occupied as a storehouse, situated on the northerly side of, and about forty-two feet distant from, the ropework at…
Read the full summary
This was an action on a policy of insurance against fire, and was tried before the chief justice and a jury, on the 18th Feb., 1853. By the terms of the policy the insurance was stated to be for $2000 11 on thei/r (the plaintiffs’) stock as rope manufacturers, their own, or held by them in trust or on commission, contained in the brick building with tin roof, occupied as a storehouse, situated on the northerly side of, and about forty-two feet distant from, the ropework at Bushwick, 1.1.” The controversy between the parties turned wholly on the construction proper to be given to the words in…
1Opinion of the CourtBy the Court. Bosworth, J.
The policy states that the *272subject matter insured is “ contained in the brick building,' with tin roof, occupied as a storehouse, situate on the northerly side of, and about forty-two feet distant from, the rope-walk, Bushwick, Long Island.”
The Court of Appeals held in this case, that the words “occupied as a storehouse,” necessarily imported and constituted a warranty that the building was “ not occupied for any other purpose.” That decision leaves no question open as to the meaning of the words, or their legal effect.
The policy is dated September 6th, 1848. The building burned was put in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Langdon v. New-York Equitable InsuranceThe Superior Court of New York City · 1828
3Cited by1 opinion
- Wall v. . the East River Mutual Insurance Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1852