Geib v. Enterprise Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota
[This was an action on an insurance policy], The main defence was an alleged concealment by the assured at the time of effecting the insurance, of a previous sale of the property insured, under a mortgage. Respecting the necessity of a d'sclosure by the applicant of the existence of such a fact, and what acts on the part of the local agents of' the company would amount to a waiver of the necessity of making such disclosure, the jury was directed as follows.
1Opinion of the Court
DILLON, Circuit Judge.
The principal de-fence relied on is that the plaintiff in effecting the insurance concealed the fact that there was an incumbrance on the lot and building to the amount of about 83,000, at the time the policy in suit was issued. It is not denied that in point of fact there was a mortgage of this amount upon the property. There is no proof that the defendant or its agent knew of the existence of this incum-brance when the policy was delivered to the plaintiff.
In the application (which is made part of the policy and a warranty on the part of the plaintiff) the question as…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Rowley v. . the Empire Insurance Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1867
- Miner v. Phœnix InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
- North American Fire Insurance v. ThroopMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
- Shaw v. Scottish Commercial InsuranceUnited States Circuit Court · 1880
3Cited by3 opinions
- Farnum v. Phoenix InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Sproul v. Western Assurance Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1898
- Steele v. St. Louis Mutual Life InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1876