Leavitt v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Agreed Statement. The case is stated in the opinion. The statute of 1895 is intended to deprive the insurance companies of all right to indemnity, which they had under the law, before the amendment, and under the uniform line of decisions. It is contrary to § 1 Art. XIY of the constitution of the United States which provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Read the full summary
Agreed Statement. The case is stated in the opinion. The statute of 1895 is intended to deprive the insurance companies of all right to indemnity, which they had under the law, before the amendment, and under the uniform line of decisions. It is contrary to § 1 Art. XIY of the constitution of the United States which provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Private corporations are persons within the meaning of that clause of the constitution. Charlotte C. A. Ji. liy. Co. v. Cibbes, 142 U. S. 386. The amendment of 1895 provides…
1Opinion of the CourtWiswell, J.
On July 26th, 1895, the plaintiff’s property, both real and personal, was injured by fire communicated by a locomotive engine in use by the defendant corporation, but, as is admitted, without fault or negligence on the part of the defendant. The plaintiff had insurance upon her property against fire under policies dated in March, 1895.
Pevised Statutes, c. 51, § 64, prior to the amendment of 1895, was as follows: “When a building or other property is injured *157by fire communicated by a locomotive engine, the corporation using it is responsible for such injury, and it has an insurable interest in…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Barbier v. ConnollySupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Phœnix Insurance v. Erie & Western Transportation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. HumesSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. MacKeySupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Ewell v. DaggsSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Travelers Insurance v. Brass Goods Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1925
- Emery Waterhouse Co. v. LeaSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1983
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Home InsuranceIndiana Supreme Court · 1915
- Rhinehart v. Denver & Rio Grande RailroadSupreme Court of Colorado · 1916
- In re the Insolvency of the Bank of Nampa, Ltd.Idaho Supreme Court · 1916
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.