Hitchcock v. . the North Western Insurance Company
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
It is only by force of the special clause, prohibiting an assignment of the interest of the assured in the policy, or in the property insured, without the consent of the insurers, that a forfeiture of the policy is claimed to have occurred. In the absence of such provision, an assignment of property and policy, in marine insurances (however it may be in regard to fire policies), is valid, and the policy remains in force for the benefit of the assignee, although there is no notice of the assignment given to the insurers. (Wakefield v. Martin,3 Mass., 558; Earl v. Shaw, 1 John. Cases, 313;…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Darling v. Rogers & SagoryCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1839
- Stetson v. Massachusetts Mutual Fire InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Wakefield v. MartinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1799
- Jackson ex rel. Stevens v. SilvernailNew York Supreme Court · 1818
- Burdick v. McVannerNew York Supreme Court · 1846
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Griffey v. New York Central InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Washington Fire Insurance v. KellyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1870
- Sandler v. New Jersey Realty Title InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1962
- Savage v. . Howard Insurance CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Harris v. North American InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.