Hamilton v. Liverpool London Globe Ins Co
Citation | 136 U.S. 242,10 S.Ct. 945,34 L.Ed. 419 |
Parties | HAMILTON v. LIVERPOOL & LONDON & GLOBE INS. CO |
Decision Date | 19 May 1890 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
This was an action upon a policy of insurance numbered 2,907,224, against fire, for a year from September 5, 1885, upon a stock of tobacco in the plaintiff's warehouse at 413 and 415 Madison street, in Covington, in the state of Kentucky. Among the printed 'conditions relating to the methods of adjustment of loss, and the payment thereof,' were the following: The tenth condition, after provisions relating to proofs of loss, certificate of a magistrate, submission to examination on oath, and production of books and vouchers, and certified copies of lost bills and invoices, further provided: By the eleventh condition, 'it is, furthermore, hereby expressly provided and mutually agreed that no suit or action against this company for the recovery of any claim by virtue of this policy shall be sustainable in any court of law or chancery until after an award shall have been obtained fixing the amount of such claimi n the manner above provided.' The answer put in issue the amount of loss, and set up that the plaintiff had not performed the conditions of the policy on his part, but had refused to submit a difference between the parties as to the amount of loss to appraisal and award as provided in the policy, and, against the defendant's protest, had sold the property insured, and deprived the defendant of its right under the policy to have an appraisal made, and to take the property, or any part thereof, at its appraised value, and had thereby waived the right to recover under the policy. At the trial the plaintiff offered evidence tending to prove the execution of the policy, a loss by fire on April 16, 1886, occasioned by the tobacco becoming saturated and impregnated with smoke, and thereby greatly damaged, and proofs of loss in accordance with the policy. The only other evidence introduced was a correspondence between the parties at Cincinnati, the material parts of which were as follows:
April 23, 1886. Defendant to plaintiff:
April 24, 1886. Plaintiff to defendant:
April 24, 1886. Defendant to plaintiff: 'This company will be pleased to have your claim presented in due course and form, giving' (among other things)
April 26, 1886. Plaintiff to defendant: 'I inclose proof of loss under policy of your company, with invoice attached, in compliance with the requirements of the policy.'
April 27, 1886. Defendant's agent to plaintiff:
April 27, 1886. Plaintiff's counsel to defendant: 'Mr. Hamilton is obliged, for the prosecution of his business, to remove at once the property covered by the insurance from his factory in which the property was insured.' 'The property covered by the policy above referred to will require at least two weeks from this date to remove and bring to sale, and during that time it will be subject to whatever examination you may wish to make.' 'It does not occur to me that there can be any impediment in ascertaining the amount of the loss by an arbitration, in the manner provided by the policy, from the course which Mr. Hamilton indicates that he proposes to pursue.'
April 28, 1886. Defendant to plaintiff's counsel:
April 28, 1886....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wier v. Texas Co.
...was for the court, and not the jury. West v. Smith, 101 U.S. 263, 270, 25 L.Ed. 809; Hamilton v. Liverpool, London & Globe Insurance Co., 136 U.S. 242, 255, 10 S.Ct. 945, 34 L.Ed. 419; Hughes v. Dundee Mortgage Co., 140 U.S. 98, 104, 11 S.Ct. 727, 35 L.Ed. 354." See, also, 53 Am.Juris. 224,......
-
Hunter v. Colfax Consol. Coal Co.
...Am. Dec. 624;Faunce v. Burke, 16 Pa. 469, 55 Am. Dec. 519; Navigation Co. v. Fenlon, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) 205; Hamilton v. Insurance Co., 136 U.S. 242, 10 Sup. Ct. 945, 34 L. Ed. 419. See, also, Central Law Journal, 168. Chapter 14 of title 21 of the Code of 1897 provides that all controversi......
-
McCullough v. Clinch-Mitchell Const. Co.
...Ed. 614; Chicago, S. F. & C. Railroad Co. v. Price, 138 U. S. 185, 11 S. Ct. 290, 34 L. Ed. 917; Hamilton v. Liverpool & L. & G. Insurance Co., 136 U. S. 242, 256, 10 S. Ct. 945, 34 L. Ed. 419; Martinsburg & P. R. Co. v. March, 114 U. S. 549, 5 S. Ct. 1035, 29 L. Ed. 255; Kihlberg v. United......
-
Hunter v. Colfax Consolidated Coal Co.
... ... e., by his failure to use ... reasonable care." Schmitt v. Hamilton Mfg. Co., ... 135 Wis. 117, 115 N.W. 353; Zentner v. Oshkosh Gaslight ... Nav. Co. v. Fenlon, 4 Watts & Serg. 205; Hamilton v ... Liverpool", L. & G. Ins. Co., 136 U.S. 242, 34 L.Ed. 419, ... 10 S.Ct. 945 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Appraisal of Insurance Claims
...appraisal which does not determine the question of liability is valid and will be upheld. Hamilton v. Liverpool, London & Globe Ins. Co. , 136 U.S. 242, 34 L. Ed. 419, 10 S. Ct. 945 (1890). Appraisers are not empowered to resolve collateral issues and, in fact, cannot make legal determinati......