Brown v. Hartford Insurance Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut
WRIT of error. This was an action of assumpsit, upon a policy of insu-ranee, upon goods on board the brigantine Ontario, from to New-York, or JYew-London; against dan-pjers of the sea, See. The plaintiff stated his interest — a loss by tempest — an abandonment; and a demand.
Read the full summary
WRIT of error. This was an action of assumpsit, upon a policy of insu-ranee, upon goods on board the brigantine Ontario, from to New-York, or JYew-London; against dan-pjers of the sea, See. The plaintiff stated his interest — a loss by tempest — an abandonment; and a demand. The defendants pleaded, that it was provided in their policy, that “if the assured had made any other assurance upon the premises, prior in date to this policy, then the said assurers shall be answerable only for so much, as the amount of such prior assurance may be deficient, towards fully covering the premises héreby…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Griswold, J.
not sitting.
The only question presented by this record arises from the phrase “prior in date.” The day of the date of both policies being the same, it is contended that, as the law does not notice the fractions of a day, it is incompetent for the defendants to aver, or prove, the hour sf execution, to show priority of time.
*67It Is true, generally, that the law disregards the fractions of a day, because generally it is not important; but the rule is not universal. It is clearly otherwise, where the precise time is important for the attainment of justice. Contests of this…
2Cited by5 opinions
- American Insurance v. GriswoldCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1835
- Seamans v. LoringU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1816
- Holabird v. BurrSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1846
- Carleton v. China Mutual InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1899
- Whiting ex rel. Sun Mutual Insurance v. Independent Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1860