Legal Opinion
Monmouth County Mutual Fire Insurance v. Hutchinson & the Camden & Amboy Railroad & Transportation Co.
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Decided May 15, 1870PublishedCited by 5 opinions
This cause was argued upon separate demurrers, filed by each defendant to the complainants’ bill.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The bill states that the complainants insured the dwelling-house and store-house of the defendant, Hutchinson, against *116loss by fire, to the amount of $1800, and while so insured the buildings were destroyed by fire on the 5th day of March, 1866; that the value of the buildings destroyed was $4000; and that the complainants, on the 9th of May, 1866, paid to Hutchinson $1800 for his loss. The bill further states that the fire was communicated to the buildings by sparks from the locomotives of the defendants, the Oamden and Amboy Railroad Company, running on their road near the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Ætna Fire Insurance v. TylerCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1836
- Gracie v. New-York InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- Varet v. New-York InsuranceNew York Court of Chancery · 1839
3Cited by5 opinions
- Melick v. StanleyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1980
- Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. SpiveySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Rogers v. American Fidelity & Casualty Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1958
- American Eagle, C., Co. v. Grant B. L. Assn.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1931
- United States Casualty Co. v. Hercules Powder Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1949