Dougherty v. Lion Fire Insurance
New York Supreme Court
Action to reform a fire insurance policy, and to recover on the policy. On the 6th day of June, 1898, the defendant insurance company issued the policy in question to Catharine Dougherty, who had previously owned the insured property, but who died in April, 1897, leaving a husband and several children who were the owners of the property at the time the policy was issued.
Read the full summary
Action to reform a fire insurance policy, and to recover on the policy. On the 6th day of June, 1898, the defendant insurance company issued the policy in question to Catharine Dougherty, who had previously owned the insured property, but who died in April, 1897, leaving a husband and several children who were the owners of the property at the time the policy was issued. Such policy was issued by the defendant through John McCausland, its local agent at Kingston, N. Y., who had previously insured the property for Catharine Dougherty during her lifetime, but as agent for another company.…
1Opinion of the CourtCochrane, J.
The evidence fails to make out a case for the reformation of the contract. It is fundamental that to *287justify a court in reforming a contract on the ground of a mistake, such mistake must be one which is mutual and common to both parties to the'contract. Plaintiffs claim that the defendant intended to issue the policy to them, and hence that the policy should be made to carry out that intent, and base such claim on the alleged statement of Rose E. Dougherty to Irving McCausland that her mother was dead. Irving McCausland, who was called as a witness by the plaintiffs,- testified that when the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Southard v. . CurleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Christopher & Tenth Street Railroad v. Twenty-third Street Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Paine v. . JonesNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Weed v. WhiteheadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
- Johnstown Mining Co. v. Butte & Boston Consolidated Mining Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Duke v. StuartNew York Supreme Court · 1904