64 N.Y. 162, Blossom v. Lycoming Fire Ins. Co.

Citation:64 N.Y. 162
Party Name:HENRY H. BLOSSOM, Respondent, v. THE LYCOMING FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.
Case Date:February 08, 1876
Court:New York Court of Appeals
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 162

64 N.Y. 162

HENRY H. BLOSSOM, Respondent,

v.

THE LYCOMING FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.

New York Court of Appeal

February 8, 1876

Argued Jan. 27, 1876.

Page 163

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 164

COUNSEL

O. W. Chapman for the appellant. The full performance by plaintiff of the provision of the policy as to furnishing proofs of loss was a condition precedent to his right to recover. ( Inman v. West. Ins. Co., 18 Wis., 387; Flanders on F. Ins. [ 2d ed.], 565, 578; Owen v. Farmers' J. S. Ins. Co., 57 Barb., 518; 3 Rob., 325; 57 N.Y. 500.) This provision was not waived. ( St. L. Ins. Co. v. Kyle, 11 Mo., 278; Patrick v. Ins. Co., 43 N. H., 621; Cornell v. Mil. M. F. Ins. Co., 18 Wis., 387; Ripley v. Ætna Ins. Co., 30 N.Y. 168; Underwood v. Farmers' J. S. Ins. Co., 57 Id., 500; Lyc. Ins. Co. v. Beaty, 66 Penn., 9; Busch v. Ins. Co., 6 Phila. Rep., 252.) The letter of Krouse did not create a waiver. (47 N.Y. 114; 57 Id., 500; 31 How., 508; 17 N.Y. 428; Kimball v. Ham. F. Ins. Co., 8 Bosw., 495; Citizens' F. Ins. S. and L. Co. v. Doll, 6 Am. R., 360; 32 Md., 89; Edwards v. Balt. F. Ins. Co., 3 Gill [Md.], 176.)

Giles W. Hotchkiss for the respondent. There was sufficient evidence to justify the court in refusing to nonsuit plaintiff. ( Herron v. Peoria, etc., Ins. Co., 28 Ill., 235; Cornell v. Leroy, 9 Wend., 163; Inman v. West. F. Ins. Co., 12 Id., 452; Bumpsted v. Div. M. Ins. Co., 2 Kern., 81, 92; N.Y. C. Ins. Co. v. Nat. Pro. Ins. Co., 20 Barb., 468, 475; Kendall v. Hol. P. Ins. Co., 2 T. & C., 395; Edwards v. Balt. F. Ins. Co., 3 Gill [Md.], 176.) A waiver was clearly established. (Flanders on F. Ins., 520, § 10; 541, 542, § 22; 545, 546, § § 26, 27; Lyc. Ins. Co. v. Schreffer, 6 Wright [Penn.], 188, 191; Post v. Ætna Ins. Co., 43 Barb., 351, 365; Owen v. F. J. S. Ins. Co., 57 Id., 518, 521, 522; Dohn

Page 165

v. F. J. S. Ins. Co., 5 Lans., 275, 277.)The question of waiver was one of fact. (Flanders on F. Ins., 531, § 10; Fireman's Ins. Co. v. Walden, 12 J. R., 514; Sheldon v. At. F. and M. Ins. Co., 26 N.Y. 460; Ripley v. Astor Ins. Co., 17 How. Pr., 444.)

ALLEN, J.

Several questions of minor importance arise upon the record which we deem it unnecessary to consider for the reason that the point made by the defendant, of the failure of the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP