Coursin v. Pennsylvania Insurance Co.
| Decision Date | 01 January 1863 |
| Citation | 46 Pa. 323 |
| Parties | Coursin versus The Pennsylvania Insurance Company. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
James H. Hopkins and C. B. M. Smith, for plaintiff in error.
B. & S. Woods and John Barton, for defendant in error.
All the assignments of error present, substantially, but two questions. First, to the admission of, and rulings of the court upon, the record from the Circuit Court of Illinois; and secondly, their instructions relative to the condition in the policy limiting the time within which an action may be brought for a loss, including their views in regard to the alleged waiver by the agent of the company.
The record of the proceedings in equity in the Circuit Court of Illinois, was received, not on the footing of a decree, or judgment between the parties, but as the proceedings in a mode of assurance well known in chancery. They all converged to a point with a view to, and resulting in, a conveyance by order of the chancellor, of the legal title of the plaintiff, he having shown that he was the owner of the equitable title, for a long period of time anterior to instituting the proceedings. The whole was but the formula in such an assurance, and it was all evidence, if any part was.
The decree for a deed, a step in the process, was, as must always be the case, founded on facts proved or admitted, deemed sufficient to establish the right of the plaintiff to the interposition of the court. Amongst them were the facts, that the plaintiff in the case had advanced to Coursin & Wilson, the equitable owners, all the money to build the property, and taken their notes, secured by a trust-deed, for their payment; that, being wholly unable to pay, they sold the property to the plaintiff, delivering to him full possession, which he held thereafter, together with their muniments of title, in consideration of a surrender to them of the evidences of their indebtedness. That this was done with the consent of the trustee, of course rendered unnecessary a sale by him. This arrangement was some two years before the insurance. It appearing thus, that the plaintiff was the rightful owner of the equitable estate in the premises, the court decreed that a deed should be made to him of the legal title, and accordingly decreed it to be done.
The objection to this record is, that it is res inter alios acta. But it was no more obnoxious to such an objection than would be a sheriff's deed, where the judgment, fi. fa., inquisition, venditioni and return are evidence to support it. Many of these steps may be, and often are, by arrangement between the parties, such as confession of judgment, waiver of inquisition, and sometimes of both inquisition and venditioni, assenting to a sale on the fi. fa. Yet all these things are evidence. The same objection might be made to articles of agreement, ordinary deeds, Orphans' Court sales, treasurers' sales, and the like, but we know that such objections are never made when they are offered to prove title. A party may often go behind his deed, to his article of agreement, to fix the commencement of his title. Here the commencement of the plaintiff's title was an element...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stonsz v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S.
... ... 119 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania October 5, 1936 ... Argued: ... May 27, 1936 ... Appeal, No. 119, March ... Judgment affirmed ... Assumpsit ... on insurance policy. Before SMITH, J ... The ... opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts ... Co., 134 Pa. 590; William Zoller Co. v. Hartford ... Fire Ins. Co., 272 Pa. 386; Coursin v. Pennsylvania ... Insurance Co., 46 Pa. 323 ... DISSENT ... BY: MAXEY ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Levi
...Com. v. Kaufman, 9 Pa.Super. 310; Com. v. Beale, 19 Pa.Super. 434; Com. v. King, 35 Pa.Super. 454; Aitkin v. Young, 12 Pa. 15; Coursin v. Ins. Co., 46 Pa. 323; Woodward Garey, 42 Legal Int. 490. Before Rice, P. J., Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Head, Beaver and Porter, JJ. OPINION PORTER, J.......
-
Burnice B. Bates v. German Commercial Accident Co.
...510; Cov. Mut. Life Asso. v. Baughman, 73 Ill.App. 544; De Farconnet v. Western Ins. Co., 110 F. 405, affirmed, 122 F. 448; Coursin v. Penn. Ins. Co., 46 Pa. 323; Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Springate, (Ky.) 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) 227; Rundell v. Anchor Fire Ins. Co., 128 Iowa 575, 25 L.R.A. (N. S.) 20......
-
Eberly v. Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
...51 Pa.Super. 474 Eberly v. Springfield Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Appellant No. 11-1912Superior Court of PennsylvaniaOctober 14, 1912 ... Argued ... the insurance thereon. The authorities are uniform in ... Pennsylvania that, under such circumstances, where the ... property involved is a building no necessity arises ... 245; Nat. Ins. Co. v. Brown, 128 Pa. 386; ... Hocking v. Ins. Co., 130 Pa. 170; Coursin v ... Ins. Co., 46 Pa. 323; Bonnert v. Ins. Co., 129 ... Pa. 558; Davidson v. Guardian Assur ... ...