Page images

insured under a defective charter granted under a general law.2

1. Holbrook v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 25 Minn. 229; Clark v. German Jns. Co., 7 MIo. App. 77.

2. Bon Aqua Imp. Co. v. Standard Ins. Co., 34 W. Va. 764, 12 S. E. Rep. 771.


Contract with Infant.

An insurance company is bound by its contract with an infant; in such a case infancy is no defense to a claim under the policy.

Monaghan v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 53 Mich. 238; Johnson v. Scottish Union & National Ins. Co., 93 Wis. 223, 67 N. W. Rep. 416; Mead v. Phenix Ins. Co., Kans. ,75 Pac. Rep. 475.

RULE 4. Property for Which Assured Liable. Where policy covers property “ for which the assured may be liable,”

" the word “liable” does not mean a perfected or fixed legal liability, but simply a condition out of which a liability might arise, based on some duty which the insured owed to the owner of the property; in such a case the assured may recover the entire value or loss, holding the excess over his own interest for benefit of the owner.

Home Ins. Co. v. Peoria & Pekin R. Co., 178 Ill. 64, 52 N. E. Rep. 862, aflg. 78 Ill. App. 137; Burke v. Continental Ins. Co., App. Div.

91 N. Y. Supp. 402. And cee Allen v. Royal Ins. Co., Tex. Civ. App. 49 S. W. Rep. 931; Germania Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 55, 40 S. W. Rep. 200, 27 Ins. L. J. 267; Phønix Ins. Co. v. Belt R. Co., 182 n. 33, 51 N. E. Rep. 1046; Minn., St. P. & M. R. Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 55 Minn. 236, 56 N. W. Rep. 815, 23 Ins. L. J. 68; Home Ins. Co. v. Railroad Co., 71 Minn. 296, 74 N. W. Rep. 140.

And as to subrogation to carrier's rights, that there is none, see Id.

[ocr errors]



[ocr errors]

When policy insures “ E. S. K., receiver for ... on their one-half interest,” etc., the interest of the parties appears on the face of the policy, and no reformation is required to enable the successor of the re ceiver to sue thereon as representative of the interest intended to be insured.

Steel v. Phænix Ins. Co., 51 Fed. Rep. 715, 22 Ins. L. J. 7, 2 C. C. A. 463.


Account of whom it may Concern.

Where the policy is issued to the manager of a ware house or factor for account of whom it may concern, the intention is that it shall cover to the amount of insurance named therein any goods of the character and description specified in the policy, which from time to time during its continuance might be in the warehouse under the control of its manager. In such a case the policy applies for the benefit of the person who may own the property at the time of the loss, although he had no interest in the property when the policy was issued; and extrinsic evidence is admissible to show who was in fact concerned. The manager may institute the suit to recover total value of the goods destroyed and out of the recovery pay himself to the extent of his interest and the balance he holds as trustee or for the benefit of the owner or owners; and so where a carrier or transportation company is insured for account of whom it may concern; and so when any one is also insured for account of whom it may concern, or as representative of other interests.

1. Morotock Ins. Co. v. Cheek, 93 Va. 8, 25 Ins. L. J. 649, 24 S. E. Rep. 464; Smith v. Carmack, 64 S. W. Rep. 372, Tenn. Ch., affd. orally by Sup. Ct.; Lancaster Mills v. Merchants’ Cotton-Press Co., 89 Tenn. 1; Pelzer Mfg. Co. v. Sun Fire Office, 36 S. C. 213; Fish v. Seeberger, 154 Ill. 30, 61 N. W. Rep. 681.

2. Fire Ins. Assoc. v. Merchants’ Transportation Co., 66 Md. 339.

3. Jefferson Ins. Co. v. Cotheal, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 72; Mayor v. Hamilton, 10 Bosw. 537, affd., 39 N. Y. 45; Earmoor v. California Ins. Co., 40 Fed. Rep. 847.

4. Hope Oil-Mill Compress Co. v. Phænix Ins. Co., 74 Miss. 320, 21 So. Rep. 132, 26 Ins. L. J. 995. And see Southern Cold-Storage Co. v. Dechman, 73 S. W. Rep. 547 (Tex. Civ. App.), and Rule 7.


Property Held in Trust.


When goods or other property are described as “held in trust,” the words “in trust” mean those goods with the care of which the insured is intrusted and not a trust in the technical sense enforceable in equity;' may cover “goods stored;"'? property in possession of an agent;3 and in such cases insured may recover the whole amount of any loss, holding all beyond his own interest as trustee for his principal;t the fact that a storage company is relieved by contract from responsibility for loss or damage by fire does not prevent it from insuring the property to extent of its lien."

1. Ferguson v. Pekin Plow Co., 141 Mo. 161, 42 S. W. Rep. 711; Southern Cold-Storage Co. v. Dechman, 73 S. W. Rep. 547 (Tex. Civ. App.); Hough v. People's Ins. Co., 36 Md. 398; Lucas v. Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co., 23 W. Va. 258; California Ins. Co. v. Union Compress Co., 133 U. S. 387, 409; Burke v. Continental Ins. Co.,

, 91 N. Y. Supp. 402.

App. Div.

2. Pittsburg Storage Co. v. Scottish U. & N. Ins. Co., 168 Pa. St. 522, 32 Atl. Rep. 58, 24 Ins. L. J. 781; Phænix Ins. Co. v. Favorite, 49 Ill. 259; Home Ins. Co. v. Favorite, 46 Ill. 263.

3. Roberts v. Firemen's Ins. Co., 165 Pa. St. 55, 30 Atl. Rep. 450; Snow v. Carr, 61 Ala. 363.

4. Roberts v. Firemen's Ins. Co., supra; Johnson v. Campbell, 120 Mass. 449; Hough v. People's Ins. Co., 36 Md. 398; Home Ins. Co. v. Baltimore Warehouse Co., 3 Otto (U. S.), 527; Robbins v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 16 Blatchf. (U. S. Cir.) 122; Reitenbach v. Johnson, 129 Mass. 316; California Ins. Co. v. Union Compress Co., 133 U. S. 387. And see Stilwell v. Staples, 19 N. Y. 401; Waring v. Indemnity Ins. Co., 45 X. Y. 606; Boyd v. McKee, 99 Va. 72, 37 S. E. Rep. 810; Ferguson v. Pekin Plow Co., supra; McDonald v. Palmer, 48 S. W. Rep. 338, affd. orally by Sup. Ct. Tenn. 342; Johnston v. Charles Abresch Co., Wis.

101 N. W. Rep. 395. 5. Pittsburg Storage Co. v. Scottish U. & N. Ins. Co., supra.

As to goods stored, see “ Exemptions,” “Exceptions,” etc., Rules 16, 17.

RULE 8. Property under Conditional Contract of Sale. When personal property is sold under a conditional contract of sale, title to remain in seller until price is paid, and insurance is taken out upon his interest and he pays the premium, he is entitled to all the insurance money, and the purchaser has no claim to the same;' if the vendee is liable for loss or damage by fire, his insurable interest extends to the whole value of the property and is not limited to payments.?

1. Kortlander v. Elston, 52 Fed. Rep. 180, 2 C. C. A. 557.

2. Ryan v. Agricultural Ins. Co., Mass. 73 N. E. Rep. 849, distinguishing Tabbut v. American Ins. Co., Mass. , 70 N. E. Rep. 430.

[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]


Insurance of an Estate. When policy issues to and in name of an estate,” as " Estate of ... " it covers interests of heir and administrator; and, if obtained by one, may be ratified by the other even after a loss; in such a case extrinsic evidence is admissible to show who were intended.2

1. Phænix Ins. Co. v. Hancock, 123 Cal. 222, 55 Pac. Rep. 905. And see Weed v. London & L, Ins. Co., 116 N. Y. 106, 22 N. E. Rep. 229; Savage v. Howard Ins. Co., 52 N. Y. 502; Magoun v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 86 Minn. 486, 91 N. W. Rep. 5.

2. Clinton v. Hope Ins. Co., 45 N. Y. 454. And see Globe Ins. Co. v. Boyle, 21 Ohio St. 119.


RULE 1o.

Policy in Name of Deceased Owner — Wrong Name. Where policy by accident, mistake, or design is written in name of a deceased owner instead of “ Estate of such owner," as applied for, and the facts being known to company's agent who issued the policy, the insurance is not thereby voided; nor is it necessary to have policy reformed in equity. Claim may be maintained thereon at law, the plaintiff executor averring that policy was made to him in the name therein appearing, and so when policy is issued in wrong name of assured who is known by both names;- and so where a woman is insured, and the property is described as “his." 3

1. Lumbermen's Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bell, 166 Ill. 400, 45 N. E. Rep. 130, affg. 63 Ill. 67.

2. Hibernia Ins. Co. v. O'Connor, 29 Mich. 241. 3. Simon v. Home Ins. Co., 58 Mich. 278.

RULE 11.

Name of Estate, Loss Payable to Widow.

Where policy issues to and in name of estate with loss payable to the widow as her interest may appear, her interest being that of dower, and she dies, a settlement with her executor by the insurance company, even against the protest of the owner of the reversion,

« PreviousContinue »