Legal Opinion

Brown v. Hartford Fire Ins.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided July 1, 1858Published

At law. This was an action of assump-sit [by George O. Brown and others against the Hartford Fire Insurance Company] on a policy of insurance. [There was a trial and a special verdict, and defendant moved for judgment non obstante veredicto, which, being treated as a motion in arrest of judgment, was granted.] As the case turned entirely on the particular allegations in the pleadings, their substance is here inserted.

Read the full summary

At law. This was an action of assump-sit [by George O. Brown and others against the Hartford Fire Insurance Company] on a policy of insurance. [There was a trial and a special verdict, and defendant moved for judgment non obstante veredicto, which, being treated as a motion in arrest of judgment, was granted.] As the case turned entirely on the particular allegations in the pleadings, their substance is here inserted. The declaration -was, in substance, as follows: “For that the plaintiffs, as trustees of Thomas Brown, as aforesaid, on the 1st day of November, A. D. 1S51, were interested in a…

1Opinion of the Court

CURTIS, Circuit Justice.

The defendant moves for a judgment non obstante veredic-to. Such a judgment may be rendered in favor of the plaintiff when the cause of action shown by the declaration is confessed by the plea and no bar pleaded. But a defendant cannot have such a judgment. He can only move in arrest of judgment if the bar shown by the plea be sufficient, and the matter found by the verdict does not answer it. Smith v. Smith, 4 Wend. 468; Schermerhorn v. Schermerhorn, 5 Wend. 513; Bellows v. Shannon, 2 Hill, 86. Still, this motion may be treated as a motion by the defendant to arrest…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Jefferson Insurance v. H. & D. Cotheal.New York Supreme Court · 1831
  2. Jones v. WitterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
  3. Jones v. DeyerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1849
  4. Smith v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1830
  5. Briggs v. DorrNew York Supreme Court · 1821

4 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