Nevins v. Rockingham Mutual Fire Insurance
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, on a policy of insurance against fire, issued by the defendants, a mutual fire insurance company, to the plaintiff, who owned the property insured, and gave his premium note to the defendants.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on a policy of insurance against fire, issued by the defendants, a mutual fire insurance company, to the plaintiff, who owned the property insured, and gave his premium note to the defendants. Plea, the general issue, under which the defendants stated the following grounds of defence: 1. The directors of the company did not determine the amount of the loss until long after the commencement of this suit. 2. This suit .was instituted by one Joel C. Lane, in the name of the plaintiff, claiming to be assignee of the plaintiff, whereas Lane had no authority to institute the suit, and…
1Opinion of the CourtPerlby, J.
The objection that the suit was brought and is prosecuted by or for Lane, without authority from the plaintiff, cannot prevail. In the absence of proof to the contrary, we must presume that the suit is prosecuted by the plaintiff on the record, or by his authority.
*28If the claim of the plaintiff had been assigned after the loss, the assignee would have power to institute and prosecute the suit, without any other authority from the nominal plaintiff than that which is implied in the assignment, and that implied authority being coupled with an interest, could not be revoked. Sanborn v. Little, 3…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bardstown & Louisville Railroad v. MetcalfeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1862
- Sanborn v. LittleSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1826
- Wadleigh v. PillsburySuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1843