Juhel v. Church
New York Supreme Court
This action was brought for a return of premium. At the trial, a verdict was found for the plaintiffs, subject to the opinion of the court, on a case ; and if the court should be of opinion against the plaintiffs, a judgment of nonsuit was to be entered. The plaintiffs chartered the ship Three Sisters to bring a cargo of wines from the Spanish Main to New York; and had insured, by a valued policy, 12,000 dollars on goods for the voyage.
Read the full summary
This action was brought for a return of premium. At the trial, a verdict was found for the plaintiffs, subject to the opinion of the court, on a case ; and if the court should be of opinion against the plaintiffs, a judgment of nonsuit was to be entered. The plaintiffs chartered the ship Three Sisters to bring a cargo of wines from the Spanish Main to New York; and had insured, by a valued policy, 12,000 dollars on goods for the voyage. But although in the printed part of the policy the same was stated to be on goods, yet by a memorandum in writing at the bottom of the policy, it was declared…
1Opinion of the CourtKent, J.
I consider this as a wager policy. It has the indicia of a wager policy, as they are pointed out by the cases on the subject. (Doug. 468. Park, 259.) Here was to be no other proof of interest required than the policy itself, and if the goods did not arrive the insurer was to pay. It was in fact betting on the return of the ship, and if she had not returned, in consequence of any peril enumerated in the policy, the plaintiff would, on its production, have been entitled to the sum insured. *As the
plaintiffs claim a return of premium, it has been made a question whether this be a valid policy.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Amory v. GilmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1806
- Clendining v. ChurchNew York Supreme Court · 1805
- Smith v. Universal InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1821
- Pritchet v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1803
- Adams v. Pennsylvania InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1828
3Cited by2 opinions
- Amory v. GilmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1806
- Wheeler v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'nAppellate Court of Illinois · 1902