Baldwin v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan. The bill in this case states-that on the 25th day of April, 1893, the complainant was the owner of the tug Sea Gull, and, as such owner, made application to the defendant for insurance against loss by fire for one year, and that the defendant wrote a Michigan standard policy on the tug for $4,000, a copy of which is annexed to the bill of complaint, but by mistake of defendant’s servants…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan. The bill in this case states-that on the 25th day of April, 1893, the complainant was the owner of the tug Sea Gull, and, as such owner, made application to the defendant for insurance against loss by fire for one year, and that the defendant wrote a Michigan standard policy on the tug for $4,000, a copy of which is annexed to the bill of complaint, but by mistake of defendant’s servants the policy was written in the name of Captain James Reid instead of complainant; that on April 30, 1893, the Sea Gull…
1Opinion of the CourtWanty, District Judge
The complainant was in equity only a mortgagee of the vessel which he claims to have insured as owner. Davidson v. Baldwin, 79 Fed. 95, 24 C. C. A. 453. The policy which was issued provided, among other things, that it should be void if the interest of the insured was other than unconditional and sole ownership. Whether if a policy had issued insuring Baldwin as sole and unconditional owner, without qualifying words, it would have been enforceable, we need not decide, for there was no evidence of any agreement to insure Baldwin as sole owner. But it is urged that a policy should be decreed to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Davidson v. BaldwinCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1897
- Grosholz v. NewmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Hoffman v. McMorranMichigan Supreme Court · 1883