Commonwealth v. Cali
| Decision Date | 28 November 1923 |
| Citation | 141 N.E. 510,247 Mass. 20 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. CALI. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Worcester County; W. P. Hall, Judge.
Sebastiano Cali was convicted of burning a building, which at the time was insured against loss by fire, with intent to injure the insurer, and brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
C. B. Rugg, Asst. Dist. Atty., and E. G. Norman, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Worcester, for the Commonwealth.
C. T. Flynn, of Fitchburg, for defendant.
The defendant having been indicted, tried and convicted under G. L. c. 266, § 10, of burning a building in Leominster belonging to Maria Cali, which at the time was insured against loss or damage by fire, with intent to injure the insurer, the case is here on his exceptions to the denial of his motion for a directed verdict, and to rulings at the trial.
[1] It is contended there was no evidence the building was insured by a valid policy at the time it was burned. But it was uncontroverted that when the defendant was the owner he mortgaged the property to the Fitchburg Co-operative Bank and procured and delivered a policy of insurance thereon payable to the mortgagee, which contained this clause:
‘If this policy shall be made payable to a mortgagee of the insured real estate, no act or default of any person other than such mortgagee, or his agents, or those claiming under him shall affect the mortgagee's right to recover in case of loss on such real estate: Provided, that the mortgagee shall on demand pay according to the established scale of rates for any increase of risks not paid for by the insured, and whenever this company shall be liable to a mortgagee for any sum for loss under this policy, for which no liability exists as to the mortgagor, or owner, and the company shall elect by itself, or with others to pay the mortgagee the full amount secured by such mortgage, then the mortgagee shall assign and transfer to the companies interested upon such payment the said mortgage together with the note and debt thereby secured.’
The mortgage has never been discharged, nor the policy canceled, and his subsequent conveyance of the property to Maria Cali without the consent of the company, or any other acts or defaults on the defendant's part which would avoid the policy as to him, did not affect the rights of the bank in so far as its interests were protected. It could enforce the policy in its own name. Palmen Savings Bank v. Insurance Co. of North America, 166 Mass. 189, 191, 44 N. E. 211,32 L. R. A. 615, 55 Am. St. Rep. 387;Commonwealth v. Kaplan, 238 Mass. 250, 130...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Opinion of the Justices
...189, 44 N. E. 211,32 L. R. A. 615, 55 Am. St. Rep. 387;Commonwealth v. Kaplan, 238 Mass. 250, 254, 130 N. E. 485;Commonwealth v. Cali, 247 Mass. 20, 24, 141 N. E. 510. Giving due weight to all of these factors and not singling out one as decisive, we are of opinion, though with some hesitat......
-
Commonwealth v. Pfeiffer
...at issue. Given the plain language of G. L. c. 266, § 1, the cases do not advance the Commonwealth's cause.In Commonwealth v. Cali, 247 Mass. 20, 141 N.E. 510 (1923), the defendant was not charged with arson but with burning insured property with intent to defraud. At that time, G. L. c. 26......
-
Commonwealth v. Dung Van Tran
...N.E. 909 (1933) (defendant, with knowledge that there had been fire in house, left without notifying authorities); Commonwealth v. Cali, 247 Mass. 20, 24, 141 N.E. 510 (1923) (notwithstanding defendant's claim that fire's origin was accidental, jury could find after reviewing all circumstan......
-
Com. v. Bianco
...Myers, 7 N.J. 465, 475-481, 81 A.2d 710 (1951); W. LaFave & A.W. Scott, Jr., Criminal Law § 26, at 186 (1972). Cf. Commonwealth v. Cali, 247 Mass. 20, 24, 141 N.E. 510 (1923) (defendant had duty to extinguish fire in building even if accidentally caused). This theory of culpability was not ......
-
"am I My Brother's Keeper?": Reforming Criminal Hazing Laws Based on Assumption of Care
...justifiably uses force in self-defense nevertheless has a legal duty to summon aid for the wounded attacker); cf. Commonwealth. v. Cali, 141 N.E. 510, 511 (Mass. 1923) (holding that an arson conviction is proper if the defendant innocently set the fire but then allowed it to burn in order t......
-
§ 9.07 Omissions: Exceptions to the No-Liability Rule
...murder for V's death resulting from his omission).[121] Regina v. Miller, [1983] 1 All ER 978 (House of Lords); see Commonwealth v. Cali, 141 N.E. 510 (Mass. 1923).[122] State v. Mont. Thirteenth Judicial District Ct., 995 P.2d 951 (Mont. 2000).[123] See, e.g., People v. Oliver, 210 Cal. Ap......
-
§ 9.07 OMISSIONS: EXCEPTIONS TO THE NO-LIABILITY RULE
...for V's death resulting from his omission).[120] . Regina v. Miller, [1983] 1 All ER 978 (House of Lords); see Commonwealth v. Cali, 141 N.E. 510 (Mass. 1923).[121] . State ex rel. Kuntz v. Thirteenth Judicial District, 995 P.2d 951 (Mont. 2000).[122] . See, e.g., People v. Oliver, 210 Cal.......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...140 Cahill, People v., 328 P.2d 995 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958), 260 Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798), 41 Cali, Commonwealth v., 141 N.E. 510 (Mass. 1923), 104 Callanan v. United States, 364 U.S. 587 (1961), 404, 405 Cameron, State v., 329 P.3d 1158 (Kan. 2014), 497 Cameron, State v., 5......