Legal Opinion

Fowler v. . the New York Indemnity Insurance Company

New York Court of Appeals

Decided March 5, 1863PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The radical defect in the complaint is, that it contains no averment of interest, either in the plaintiff or in his assignor, in the subject-matter of the insurance. This court, in the case of Ruse v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company (23 N.Y., 516), distinctly enunciated the proposition that a policy, obtained by a party who has no interest in the subject of insurance, is a mere wager policy. It was said, in that case, that, aside from authority, this question would seem to be of easy solution. Such policies, if valid, not only afford facilities for a demoralizing system of gaming, but…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ruse v. . the Mutual Benefit Life Insurance CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
  2. Howard v. Albany InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1846
  3. Granger v. Howard InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1830
  4. Clendining v. ChurchNew York Supreme Court · 1805
  5. Buchanan v. Ocean Insurance Co.New York Supreme Court · 1826

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Hardwick v. State InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Shearman v. . the Niagara Fire Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1871
  3. Harness v. National Fire InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
  4. Northwestern National Insurance v. Southern States Phosphate & Fertilizer Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1917
  5. Gustin v. Concordia Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API