Aetna Ins. Co. v. Miers
| Decision Date | 31 December 1857 |
| Citation | 37 Tenn. 139 |
| Parties | AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY v. R. N. MIERS. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
FROM SUMNER.
This action was brought by Miers in the circuit court of Sumner, for the sum of $1,600, the amount agreed to be paid by the plaintiff in error, on the destruction of a dwelling-house, in the town of Gallatin, by fire. At the October term, 1857, before Judge Turner, verdict and judgment were for the plaintiff.
Munday and Allen, for the plaintiff in error; Guild and Winchester, for the defendant in error.
This was an action to recover $1,600 upon a policy of insurance upon a dwelling-house in Gallatin, which was destroyed by fire on 7th of January, 1855. The policy is dated 1st of January, 1855.
Two questions arise for consideration:
1. Had Miers an insurable interest in the property?
2. Was the certificate of the adjacent magistrate, required in the contract of insurance, as a condition precedent to recovery, such as was required?
1. The house and lot was sold under an execution in favor of Blew & Foster, against Thomas, who was the owner of the property, in December 1854, and struck off to Miers. He did not pay the money, nor get a deed.
Some arrangement was made with the creditors for time. He had some understanding with Thomas to the effect that he was to hold the property as a security for the amount bid, and other debts for which he was liable for him. Such was the state of his interest at the time the house was consumed by fire, on the night of the 7th of Jan., 1855, just seven days after the date of the policy.
All these facts in relation to the title and the interest of Miers were fully disclosed to Thomas Boyers, the agent of the plaintiffs in error, before the risk was taken, as the jury have found. In February after, the said Miers having failed to pay the purchase-money, the lot was resold by Blew & Foster, or under their judgment, and bought in by them. But this was after the fire, and after the liability of the insurers was fixed, if the interest in the plaintiff was insurable by law.
What is an insurable interest in property is not very clearly and distinctly settled in the books. It is said that it may be proved without the evidence of any legal or equitable title to the property insured. The term “interest,” in this application does not necessarily imply “property.” There is some difficulty in likening an insurable interest to any other interest in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncan v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
...530 S.W.2d 761 (1975); Cherokee Foundries v. Imperial Assur. Co., 188 Tenn. 349, 219 S.W.2d 203, 9 A.L.R.2d 177 (1949); Aetna Insurance Co. v. Miers, 37 Tenn. 139 (1857). We have for many years in this State followed the principle that one has an insurable interest in property if by its con......
-
Baird v. Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co.
... ... property be distinctly specified." ... In the ... somewhat later case of Ætna Insurance Co. v. Miers, ... 37 Tenn. 139, 141, 5 Sneed 139, 141, Caruthers, J., finding ... that the true character and extent of the insured's ... interest had been ... ...
-
Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Brown
...review [53 TENNAPP 246] of Tennessee cases dealing with what constitutes an insurable interest, including the early case of Aetna Insurance Co. v. Miers, 37 Tenn. 139, where it was 'What is an insurable interest in property, is not very clearly and distinctly settled in the books. It is sai......
-
Cherokee Foundries v. Imperial Assur. Co.
...Baird v. Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co., 178 Tenn. 653, 663, 667, 162 S.W.2d 384, 390, 140 A.L.R. 1226, by quotation from Aetna Ins. Co. v. Miers, 37 Tenn. 139, 141, "`What is an insurable interest in property, is not very clearly and distinctly settled in the books. It is said that it may b......