Gazzam v. Ohio Insurance
Ohio Supreme Court
Assumpsit, upon a policy of insurance effected by the plaintiff as agent for the owners of the steamboat Trenton. Plea, non assumpsit. The policy offered in evidence had the corporate seal 215] *affixed to it, was objected to on the trial, and ruled out: and the plaintiff was non suited.
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
The case in Munford was covenant. The instrument offered had a scroll annexed. It nowhere appeared in the instrument that it was supposed to be a deed, and no mention was made of a seal in the testatum clause. In the absence of any such proof it was held a simple contract. The case in Cranch was case upon a sealed policy, and the seal was mentioned in the testatum clause; the judgment was arrested because the policy was a deed. The real question is whether the seal affixed to the instrument is the seal of the corporation, and was by its authority affixed to the instrument at its execution. If…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Rush v. VoughtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1867