Mooney v. Howard Insurance
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract upon a policy of insurance against loss by fire. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Blodgett, J., the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions, which appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, C. J.
The defendant insured the plaintiff “ on his stock of rags, old metals, bones, and barrels ” contained in his storehouse. The plaintiff is a junk-dealer, “ his stock ” consisting of old articles and materials, paper stock, pieces and fragments of all kinds, and it could not be particularly described in a policy or other contract without great prolixity. We think it was competent for the plaintiff to prove that, by a usage of the trade, the terms, “rags” and “ old metals” had acquired a broader signification than belongs to these words as commonly used.* It was an application of the rule that,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Astor v. Union InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- Howard v. Great Western InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Croucher v. WilderMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
3Cited by14 opinions
- Citizens & Southern Bank v. Union Warehouse & Compress Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1924
- Koshland v. Columbia InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- Morningstar v. CunninghamIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
- Menage v. RosenthalMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- A. J. Tower Co. v. Southern Pacific Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.