Rice v. Tower
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The Adams Mutual Fire Insurance Company, being sum"moned as trustees of the principal defendant, made answer, by William P. Bray ton, their secretary, to the following effect: On the 4th of October 1853, they issued a policy to the defend ant, whereby they insured him against loss or damage by fire, under the conditions and limitations expressed in the rules of the company, annexed to the policy, (of which those relied on by the trustees are copied in the margin,*) and…
Read the full summary
The Adams Mutual Fire Insurance Company, being sum"moned as trustees of the principal defendant, made answer, by William P. Bray ton, their secretary, to the following effect: On the 4th of October 1853, they issued a policy to the defend ant, whereby they insured him against loss or damage by fire, under the conditions and limitations expressed in the rules of the company, annexed to the policy, (of which those relied on by the trustees are copied in the margin,*) and subject to the lien given by statute on the personal property insured, which the company expressed their intention to rely…
1Opinion of the CourtMetcalf, J.
1. The mortgage of the insured goods to Peter G. Tower, who did not take possession of them, was not such an alienation as vacated the policy. So the law has been held in regard to real estate that is mortgaged after it is insured. Jackson v. Massachusetts Mutual Fire Ins. Co. 23 Pick. 418. And we see no reason for a distinction, on this point, between real and personal property.
2. Nor was the seizure of the insured goods on execution without removing them, an alienation that avoided the policy. There are obiter dicta in the books, that by seizure on afi.fa. the debtor’s property in the goods…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ladd v. NorthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
- Franklin Fire Insurance v. FindlaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841