Brown v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company
| Decision Date | 12 May 1875 |
| Citation | 117 Mass. 479 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Samuel R. Brown & another v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company |
Argued November 5, 1874
Essex. Contract on a policy of fire insurance. Trial in the Superior Court before Dewey, J., who, after verdict, reported the case for the consideration of this court. The nature of the case appears in the opinion.
Judgment for the defendant.
R. E Harmon, for the plaintiffs.
J. W Perry & C. U. Bell, for the defendant.
OPINION
The action is upon a policy of fire insurance in favor of the plaintiffs, Brown & Cottrell, who were partners in business. After the fire the policy was surrendered and cancelled, on payment by the defendant of a sum of money to Brown in full satisfaction and compromise of all claims under it. A receipt and discharge was given by him in the name of the firm, which is relied upon by the defendants as a bar to this claim. The plaintiffs reply that the settlement and discharge were procured by false and fraudulent representations, and that Brown was a minor when he gave it. The case finds that the money received by Brown was divided with his partner, as were also the damaged goods which were not sold after the fire.
It is not necessary to consider all the questions raised on this report; because the settlement and discharge relied on although obtained by false and fraudulent representations constitutes a good defence until rescinded and avoided by a return or an offer to return the money paid by the defendant to obtain it. As a general rule, a party cannot rescind a contract and retain the consideration, in whole or in part, which he has received under it. There is an exception to this rule in favor of infants, and those who are under some form of disability. So that, where the consideration of the contract has been wasted or lost during minority, the infant does not lose his right to avoid it without restoration. Chandler v. Simmons, 97 Mass. 508, 514. Bartlett v. Drake, 100 Mass. 174. Bassett v. Brown, 105 Mass. 551, 558. Gibson v. Soper, 6 Gray 279.
The plaintiffs cannot avail themselves of this exception to exempt them from the duty of returning the consideration received. It is the firm that seeks to recover this insurance. The consideration for the release was received by the partnership in discharge of the policy. It was a ratification of the act of the infant partner, if...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Girard v. St. Louis Car Wheel Company
...it was found that a sum largely in excess of the amount paid to settle the disputed liability was due the plaintiff." See, also, Brown v. Ins. Co., 117 Mass. 479. Lee v. Railroad, L. R. 6 Ch. App. 527, the plaintiff was injured by a railway accident, and sent in a claim for # 691. The defen......
-
Lomax v. Southwest Missouri Electric Electric Company
...v. King, 49 Ill. 449; Wolf v. Dietsch, 75 Ill. 205; Hall v. Fullerton, 69 Ill. 448; McCarty v. Marlette, 80 Ill. 526; Brown v. Hartford Ins. Co., 117 Mass. 479; Bertrand v. St. Louis Transit Co., , Mo.App. 82 1089; Hancock v. Blackwell, 139 Mo. 453; Roberts v. Central Lead Co., 95 Mo.App. 5......
-
Girard v. St. Louis Car-Wheel Co.
...on the ground that the settlement was procured by fraud, or is not binding upon him, he must first repay the amount received. Brown v. Insurance Co., 117 Mass. 479. The principle on which these decisions rest is just, but it applies to those cases only where that which was received, and whi......
-
Clough v. Holden
... ... an innocent holder for value of the note sued on. Brown ... v. North, 21 Mo. 528; Bank v. Fowler, 36 Mo ... the order of the Union Tie Company, Chicago, $ 4,000 at room ... 70, Home Insurance Building, ... ...