Scammell v. China Mutual Insurance
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, to recover $3,000 for loss of freight of the brigantine Peeress, alleged to have been insured by the defendant under an agreement, the material part of which was as follows: “ About $3,000 insurance is wanted by Scammell Bros., for account of whom, etc. loss, if any, payable to them or order for $ on chartered freight per Brigt ‘ Peeress ’ valued at $ amount of charter at and from Santa Fé to a port in the U. K. or on the Continent.
Read the full summary
Contract, to recover $3,000 for loss of freight of the brigantine Peeress, alleged to have been insured by the defendant under an agreement, the material part of which was as follows: “ About $3,000 insurance is wanted by Scammell Bros., for account of whom, etc. loss, if any, payable to them or order for $ on chartered freight per Brigt ‘ Peeress ’ valued at $ amount of charter at and from Santa Fé to a port in the U. K. or on the Continent. Priv. of port of call for orders. Premium, open for particulars.” Before the signature of each party’s agent appeared the word “ binding ”; and at the…
1Opinion of the CourtKnowlton, J.
The memorandum relied on by the plaintiffs as a contract is in the form of an application for insurance containing a brief statement of particulars and is marked “ binding.” At the bottom are the words, “ Send policy to Walker & Hughes, 63 Wall Street, New York.” On its face it purports to be a preliminary and temporary arrangement, which contemplates the making of a full and definite contract in the form of a policy covering the same subject, with additional provisions. The premium which is to be paid as the consideration for the insurance, and which is perhaps the most important of the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Haskins v. WarrenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Strohn v. Hartford Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
- Odiorne v. New England Mutual Marine InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Baker v. Commercial Union Assurance Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
- Orient Mutual Insurance v. Wright Ex Rel. Maxwell, Wright, & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1860
3Cited by13 opinions
- Cottingham v. National Mutual Church InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1919
- Republic National Life Insurance v. HallTexas Supreme Court · 1950
- Shumway v. Home Fire & Marine Insurance Co. of CaliforniaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
- DeCesare v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- McQuaid v. Ætna InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.