Fowler v. New York Indemnity Insurance
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Supreme Court. The plaintiff, as assignee of one Robert Caldwell, brought this action to recover a loss on' a policy of insurance issued by the defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Supreme Court. The plaintiff, as assignee of one Robert Caldwell, brought this action to recover a loss on' a policy of insurance issued by the defendant. The complaint set out that, on the 6th of January, 1853, the defendant, in consideration of thirty dollars to it paid by Caldwell, issued its policy to him, insuring him in the sum of two thousand dollars “on his three-story and attic stone building, shingle roof, and also on his water-wheel, and on a frame one story building attached, occupied by the said assured as a calico and silk printing machine establishment, by…
1Opinion of the CourtDavies, J.
The radical defect in the complaint is, that it contains no averment of interest, either in the plaintiff or in his assignor, in the subject-matter of the insurance. This court, in the case of Ruse v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company (23 N. Y., 516), distinctly enunciated the proposition that a policy, obtained by a party who has no interest in the subject of insurance, is a mere wager policy. It was said, in that case, that, aside from authority, this question would seem to be of easy solution. Such policies, if valid, not only afford facilities for a demoralizing system of gaming, but…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ruse v. . the Mutual Benefit Life Insurance CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- Howard v. Albany InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Granger v. Howard InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Clendining v. ChurchNew York Supreme Court · 1805
- Buchanan v. Ocean Insurance Co.New York Supreme Court · 1826
3Cited by2 opinions
- Payne v. RoussAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
- Beardsley v. HotchkissNew York Supreme Court · 1883