New York Firemen Insurance v. De Wolf
Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors
Error from the Supreme Court. The facts appear sufficiently in the report of the same case in the Court below. (20 John. Rep. 214.) The reasons for the judgment of the Supreme Court were assigned as in 20 John. 225 to 229.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
1. Did De Wolf withhold from the insurers any fact increasing the risk insured 1 The case does not show, otherwise than from the policy, what representation of facts was made by De Wolf to the insurers; nor is it stated that he communicated, or that he withheld, any particulai fact. But it has been assumed, that the con*105tract between De Wolf and Levy, was not disclosed; and it is urged, that this contract should have been made known to the insurers. I do not perceive that this contract enhan- . ced the risk. This contract does not show, that the government of Spain, had any…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ludlow v. Bowne & EddyNew York Supreme Court · 1806
3Cited by6 opinions
- Martine v. International Life Insurance Society of LondonNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- China Mutual Insurance v. ForgeNew York Supreme Court · 1892
- Kalehua v. KamakaHawaii Supreme Court · 1882
- Lois M. Grant, on Behalf of Herself and All Other Similarly Situated Persons v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
- Paul v. ReedSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1872
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.