Neilson v. Commercial Mutual Insurance
The Superior Court of New York City
This was the submission- of a controversy under § 372 of the Code. The following is the statement of facts agreed upon by the parties. City omd County of New York, ss.: The parties to this controversy hereby mutually agree upon, and submit to this court, the following statement of facts:—■ First.
Read the full summary
This was the submission- of a controversy under § 372 of the Code. The following is the statement of facts agreed upon by the parties. City omd County of New York, ss.: The parties to this controversy hereby mutually agree upon, and submit to this court, the following statement of facts:—■ First. The defendants herein are a corporation, organized under a charter granted by the Legislature of the State, and are now, and on the 4th day of December, 1852, were, engaged in a general marine insurance business in the city of Hew York. Second. On the 4th day of December, 1852, Thomas Heilson, the…
1Opinion of the CourtBy the Court. Duer, J.
There is no sounder- maxim in the interpretation-of-a contract in writing than that effect must be given, if possible, to every clause, and no words be rejected, as unmeaning or superfluous, to which a- consistent meaning may be attached—verba aliqwid operand debent. And the rule is especially applicable when amew clause is introduced into a contract, which, as in the case of a policy of insurance, has an established form and settled construction. The presumption is, then, not to be resisted that the clause was designed to vary the usual construction, and to effect a particular object, which…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Marx v. . BroganNew York Court of Appeals · 1907
- Crandall v. Amador CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
- Dreiser v. John Lane Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1918
- Clark v. . WiseNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Borland v. Mercantile Mutual InsuranceThe Superior Court of New York City · 1880