Dunham v. New England Mut. Ins.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
1Opinion of the Court
LOWELL, District Judge.
I am of opinion that no good bar to this proceeding is shown. The decree in England is res inter alios, and is admissible in evidence here only to prove satisfaction pro tanto. True, there can be but one satisfaction, but the decree does not prove that full satisfaction has been obtained, because there is no privity between the insurance company and the Donald McKay as joint contractors or joint trespassers which shall make a satisfaction obtained from one a conclusive settlement in favor of the other. Between the assured and his underwriter the former is only bound to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Atlantic Insurance v. Storrow & BoydNew York Court of Chancery · 1835
- Pentz v. Receivers of the Ætna Fire InsuranceNew York Court of Chancery · 1842
- Ex parte DowNew York Supreme Court · 1823
3Cited by2 opinions
- Texas & Pacific R'y Co. v. Levi & Bro.Texas Supreme Court · 1883
- MacLennan v. Yee Wo Chan Co.District Court, D. Hawaii · 1904