Houghton v. Watertown Fire Insurance
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on a policy of insurance against fire upon “ stereotype, electrotype and steel plates and cuts.” Trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows : It was admitted that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, if the articles consumed by the fire were covered by the policy. The plaintiffs contended that the articles were properly included in the term “ cuts.”
Read the full summary
Contract on a policy of insurance against fire upon “ stereotype, electrotype and steel plates and cuts.” Trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows : It was admitted that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, if the articles consumed by the fire were covered by the policy. The plaintiffs contended that the articles were properly included in the term “ cuts.” The defendant contended that they were “ dies,” and not “ cuts.” The plaintiffs were book publishers in Boston, and the articles insured constituted a part of their stock…
1Opinion of the CourtLord, J.
The argument of the plaintiffs has been directed principally to the question whether the articles destroyed were the articles insured. That is a question of fact, and a question for the jury, who have decided it. The question properly before us is one of law, and is, Did the jury decide the question of fact under proper instructions in matter of law ?
Upon this question we can have no doubt. It is entirely clear that the instruction asked for by the defendant should have been given. If other or further instructions were necessary, they were not of the nature of those actually given; nor were…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Appleman v. FisherCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1871
- Thompson v. SloanNew York Supreme Court · 1840
- Doane v. DunhamIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
- Pilmer v. Branch of State BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1864
- Sawtelle v. DrewMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Long Bros. v. J. K. Armsby Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1902
- Stanley Newman Co. v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935