Legal Opinion

Clark v. Middleton & Riley

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1853PublishedCited by 12 opinions

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The contract of insurance requires uberrima ft des between the parties, and the concealment or suppression by either party of a material fact will avoid the policy ; and the effect is the same, whether the concealment is <£by design or through negligence, mistake, inadvertence or oversight.” 1 Phil, on Ins. (old ed.) 80. The obligations of good faith are equally binding on the assured and the underwriter.

Read the full summary

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The contract of insurance requires uberrima ft des between the parties, and the concealment or suppression by either party of a material fact will avoid the policy ; and the effect is the same, whether the concealment is <£by design or through negligence, mistake, inadvertence or oversight.” 1 Phil, on Ins. (old ed.) 80. The obligations of good faith are equally binding on the assured and the underwriter. The solvency of the company is a material fact in every contract of insurance. Carter v. Boehm, 8 Burrow, 309. Oom v. Bruce, 12 East, 224. Henry v.…

1Opinion of the CourtGamble, Judge

Middleton & Riley being summoned as garnishees on an ex’* ecution in favor of Clark & Co., against the Columbus Insurance Company, answered an interrogatry in relation to their indebtedness to the company, by stating that they had effected insurance with an agency of the company and that the premium on such insurance amounted to $474 54. They further stated that when the policy was issued, the company held itself *55out to the public as entirely solvent and able to meet its engagements in the line of its business, and that the garnishees, relying on the representations of the company, accepted…

2Cited by12 opinions

  1. The Walter A. Wood Mowing v. CaldwellIndiana Supreme Court · 1876
  2. People v. HawkinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  3. State v. American Book Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1904
  4. Phenix Insurance v. Pennsylvania RailroadIndiana Supreme Court · 1893
  5. Sherwood v. AlvisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1887

7 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