Emery v. Piscataqua F. & M. Ins.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Exceptions from Nisi Prius, Davis, J., presiding. Assumpsit, upon a policy of insurance against fire. The verdict was for the plaintiff, and the defendants moved that it be set aside as being against the weight of evidence, and also on the ground of newly discovered testimony. But the view taken by the Court renders a report of the testimony useless. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of a majority of the Court was drawn by
Appleton, C. J.
The plaintiff’s title to the property insured, was acquired by a mortgage from Ira Winn to him, bearing date Dec. 1, 1860. The policy in suit was issued Oct. 5, 1861.
Whether we regard the proof adduced on the trial, or that upon which the motion to set aside the verdict on the ground of newly discovered evidence, rests, it is obvious that the mortgage of the plaintiff was not foreclosed and that the finding of the jury that the plaintiffs title had become absolute, was clearly against evidence.
A mortgagee has an insurable…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Woodbury Savings Bank & Building Ass'n v. Charter Oak Fire & Marine InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1863
- Woodbury Savings Bank & Building Ass'n v. Charter Oak Fire & Marine InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1860
3Cited by8 opinions
- Havens v. Germania Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Daggs v. Orient InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- Heim v. American Alliance Insurance Co. of New YorkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- Lawver v. Globe Mut. Ins.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1910
- White v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri · 1877
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.