Hovey v. American Mutual Insurance
The Superior Court of New York City
Motion, on the part of the defendants, for a new trial, upon exceptions, and also upon the ground that the verdict was against evidence. The action was upon a policy of insurance against fire, and was brought to recover the sum of $2,500, which was alleged to be the amount of the loss which the plaintiffs had sustained, by reason of the destruction, by fire, of the property insured.
Read the full summary
Motion, on the part of the defendants, for a new trial, upon exceptions, and also upon the ground that the verdict was against evidence. The action was upon a policy of insurance against fire, and was brought to recover the sum of $2,500, which was alleged to be the amount of the loss which the plaintiffs had sustained, by reason of the destruction, by fire, of the property insured. The plaintiffs carried on business under the name of the “Williamsburgh Oil Company,” and the insurance was on their stock of raw materials, as oil manufactures, manufactured oils, bright varnish, and oil cakes,…
1Opinion of the CourtBosworth, J.
The first point made on the appeal is, that the court erred in allowing proof that notice of the fire was given the day after its occurrence, and in overruling the objection of the defendants’ counsel to such evidence.
The policy required that the assured, on “ sustaining loss or damage by fire, should forthwith give notice thereof to the company.” The fire occurred in the night of the 20th of May, 1852. The complaint avers, “ that as soon as possible after said fire, that is to say, on the 24th of May, 1852,” the plaintiffs gave notice of the same to the defendants. The answer denies *567“ that…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Central City Insurance v. OatesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1888
- Aurora Fire Insurance v. EddyIllinois Supreme Court · 1868
- McGannon v. Michigan Millers' Mutual Fire-InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
- David Gibson & Co. v. Farmers & Mechanics' InsuranceOhio Superior Court, Cincinnati · 1871