Fish v. . Cottenet
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from an order of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the eighth district, affirming a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. This was an action to compel the delivery of a policy of insurance, and the payment of $5,000 for the destruction of the property insured.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the eighth district, affirming a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. This was an action to compel the delivery of a policy of insurance, and the payment of $5,000 for the destruction of the property insured. The question arises upon the following state of facts: The defendant, the Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company, on the 12th day of February, 1862, by letter of attorney, bearing date that day, “ appointed Harry Wilbur, of Batavia, its agent, with power to receive proposals for insurance against loss…
1Opinion of the Court
Hunt, C.
The point is made by the appellant, that the contract of October 24th was void for want of consideration, there being no agreement then made by the plaintiff to pay the premium. The argument goes to this length, that, if Mr. Fish had received a policy covering his interest as mortgagee, and four days thereafter, having become owner of the property, had applied for a change thereof, expressing that his interest, was that of owner, and the defendant had made an indorsement to that effect, stipulating that the indemnity should continue, no recovery could be had thereon in the event of a…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Cherokee Life Ins, Co. v. BrannumSupreme Court of Alabama · 1919
- Hardwick v. State InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1891
- Whited v. . Germania Fire Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Buchanan v. . Exchange Fire Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Laclede Fire-Brick Manuf'g Co. v. Hartford Steam-Boiler Inspection & Ins.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1894
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.