57 N.Y. 500, Underwood v. Farmers' Joint-Stock Ins. Co.
|Citation:||57 N.Y. 500|
|Party Name:||WILLIAM H. UNDERWOOD, Respondent, v. THE FARMERS' JOINT STOCK INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.|
|Case Date:||May 01, 1874|
|Court:||New York Court of Appeals|
Submitted Jan. 17, 1874.
Pratt, Mitchell & Brown for the appellant. The court erred in refusing to nonsuit plaintiff. (34 Barb., 213.) Selover, defendant's local agent, had no power to bind defendant by his statements after the loss, or to waive the seventh condition of the policy.
(16 Barb., 316; 13 Id., 246; 24 Id., 25; 1 Hill, 572; 4 Wend., 392; 7 Id., 281; 17 N.Y. 131; 5 Duer, 393.)
A. P. Smith for the respondent. The affidavit drawn by defendant's general agent and sworn to by plaintiff was a full compliance with the conditions annexed to the policy. (Clark v. N. E. F. Ins. Co., 6 Cush., 342; Underhill v. Agawam M. F. Ins. Co., Id., 44 a; Bumstead v. Ins. Co., 2 Kern., 81.) The condition requiring proof of loss to be furnished in ten days was waived by defendant through its agent and secretary. (Ames v. N.Y. U. Ins. Co., 14 N.Y. 253; Trustees First Bap. Ch. v. Bklyn. F. Ins. Co., 19 Id., 305; Goit v. Nat. Pro. Ins. Co., 25 Barb., 189; Owen v. Farmers' J. S. Ins. Co., 57 Id., 518; Sheldon v. At. F. and M. Ins. Co., 26 N.Y. 460; Boehen v. Wmsburg. Ins. Co., 35 Id., 131; 2 Greenl. Ev., 357, n. 2, and cases cited; Bodle v. Chenango Co. M. Ins. Co., 2 Comst., 53; Wood v. Pough. Ins. Co., 32 N.Y. 619; Bumstead v. Mut. Ins. Co., 2 Kern., 81; Post v. Etna Ins. Co., 43 Barb., 351; 25 Wend., 74, 379; 3 Comst., 122; 9 Barb., 191; 16 Id., 254; Francis v. Ocean Ins. Co., 6 Cow., 404; Etna Ins. Co. v. Tyler, 16 Wend., 402; O'Neil v. Buff. F. Ins. Co., 3 Comst., 122; Underhill v. Agawam F. Ins. Co., 6 Cush., 440; Vos v. Robinson, 9 J. R., 192; Ripley v. Etna Ins. Co., 30 N.Y. 164; Savage v. Ins. Co., 4 Bosw., 1; Bk. of U.S. v. Davis, 2 Hill, 451-461; Ingalls v. Morgan, 10 N.Y. 178-184; McLaughlin v. Wash. Ins. Co., 23 Wend., 525; Norton v. R. and S. Ins. Co., 7 Cow., 645; Gilbert v. N. S. Ins. Co., 23 Wend., 43.)
Upon the trial, the judge submitted to the jury but one question of fact, to wit: whether the plaintiff, himself, set fire to the barn insured; and charged them to render a verdict for the plaintiff if they found that question in his favor. To this portion of the charge defendant's counsel excepted. It is not disputed that it was, by the policy, a condition precedent to plaintiff's right of recovery that he
should deliver to the company a verified account, in writing, of his loss, within ten days after the loss. This condition was part of the contract of insurance; and effect should be fairly given to it as to every other part of the contract. It is undisputed that no account of the loss was delivered to the defendant or any of its agents until about one month after the loss. But the judge, at the trial, held, as matter of law, upon the evidence, that this condition had been waived by the defendant, and hence, that non-compliance with it on the part of the plaintiff did not defeat the action. It therefore becomes...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP