Oakes v. Manufacturers' Fire & Marine Insurance
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract upon a policy of insurance against fire. Trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., who ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, and directed a verdict accordingly. The defendant alleged exceptions, which appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtColt, J.
The plaintiff seeks to recover upon a fire insurance policy containing a provision that it shall become void if the insured premises are “ sold or conveyed in whole or in part.” The plaintiff conveyed the whole by warranty deed, with release of dower, to one Davis, who, at the same time and as part of the same transaction, conveyed it to the plaintiff’s *165wife. And the question is whether the policy was thereby avoided.
It is contended that the plaintiff was at no time divested of his insurable interest in the whole property, because Davis had only an instantaneous seisin, and, after the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Savage v. . Howard Insurance CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Foote v. Hartford Fire InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Smith v. Union InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
3Cited by21 opinions
- Bilodeau v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1984
- Cardin v. Royal Insurance Co. of AmericaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
- Save-Mor Supermarkets, Inc. v. Skelly Detective Service, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
- Rezendes v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
- Lustenberger v. Boston Casualty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.