McEwen v. Montgomery County Mutual Insurance
New York Supreme Court
Assumpsit, tried at the Fulton circuit before Willard, C. Judge, in May, 1841. The action was on a policy of insurance dated July 10, 1839, whereby the defendants insured the plaintiffs for five years against loss by fire, to the amount of $1500, on their goods, &c. in a building at Johnstown, “reference being had to the application of said Sexton, McEwen & Go., [the plaintiffs] for a more particular description, and asfoi-ming a part of this policy.”
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, tried at the Fulton circuit before Willard, C. Judge, in May, 1841. The action was on a policy of insurance dated July 10, 1839, whereby the defendants insured the plaintiffs for five years against loss by fire, to the amount of $1500, on their goods, &c. in a building at Johnstown, “reference being had to the application of said Sexton, McEwen & Go., [the plaintiffs] for a more particular description, and asfoi-ming a part of this policy.” The policy provided “ that in case the assured shall have already made any other insurance against loss by fire on the property herein insured,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Bronson, J.
Notice of the prior insiuance upon the same property was in the nature of a condition precedent, and if notice Avas not given, the policy was void from the beginning.
Was it necessary that the notice should be in Avriting? If it must be given as a part of the application for insurance, then undoubtedly it must be in writing, for it is one of the conditions of insurance annexed to the policy that the application shall be made in Avriting. But there is nothing in the policy requiring the notice to be inserted in the application. The words are, if there be already any…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Jackson ex dem. Bonnell v. SharpNew York Supreme Court · 1812
- Miner v. ClarkNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- In re CooperNew York Supreme Court · 1818