Davis v. Aetna Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 July 1892 |
| Citation | 34 A. 464,67 N.H. 218 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. AETNA MUT. FIRE INS. CO. SAME v. AMERICAN MANUF'RS' MUT. FIRE INS. CO. SAME v. HOME MANUF'RS' INS. CO. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Case reserved from Merrimack county.
Actions by one Davis against the Aetna Mutual Fire Insurance Company, and against the Home Manufacturers' Insurance Company and others. Case discharged.
The plaintiff, at the date of the policies was, and still is, a resident of Massachusetts, and the property insured is situate in Massachusetts. The defendant companies were organized under the laws of New Hampshire, and their principal place of business is in New Hampshire. The plaintiff applied for insurance to a broker in Massachusetts, who applied to brokers in Indiana, and they sent applications to the defendants at Concord, N. H., and the policies were there made. The defendant companies issue two forms of policies,—one, the New Hampshire standard form, which they issue to cover risks on property situate in New Hampshire; the other, like the policies in suit, which is not the New Hampshire standard form, and does not contain the statute laws of New Hampshire or any reference thereto, this form being used by them only on property situate outside of New Hampshire. The policies in suit contain certain provisions which are invalid if the contracts are governed by the statutes of New Hampshire, and the defendants set up defenses based upon such provisions. If the contracts are held to be Massachusetts contracts, or not to be construed in accordance with the New Hampshire statutes, the cases are to stand for trial; otherwise, the plaintiff is to have judgment.
S. C. Eastman, for plaintiff.
Streeter, Walker & Chase, for defendants.
The policies in suit having been made at the defendants' office in this state, on applications received by mail, the contracts became complete when the policies were deposited in the mail to be forwarded to the insurance brokers from whom the applications were received ; and, as the general rule is that the law of the place where the contract is made is to govern as to its nature, validity, construction, and effect (Stevens v. Norris, 30 N. H. 466, 470), prima facie the contracts in question are New Hampshire contracts, and are to be interpreted accordingly. If, however, the parties to a contract have a view to its being executed elsewhere, it is to be governed according to the laws of the place where it is to be executed. Cox v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keeley v. Indemnity Co. of America
... ... mortgage on the October trucks. Oehler v. Phoenix Ins ... Co., 139 S.W. 1173, 1176. (4) The court erred in ... Traders Ins. Co., 169 Mo ... 29; Martin v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 190 Mo.App. 714-15 ... S.W. 102; Ricks v. National Fire Ins. Co., 254 S.W ... 414; Waddle v. Insurance Co., 184 ... N.W. 532, 12 C. J. 450; Davis v. Insurance Co., 67 N.H. 218 ... ...
-
Keeley v. Indemnity Co. of America
...Pritchard v. Norton, 106 U.S. 124; Banco de Sonora v. Bankers Mutual Casualty Co., 124 Iowa, 576, 100 N.W. 532, 12 C.J. 450; Davis v. Insurance Co., 67 N.H. 218. DAUES, This is a suit on a fire insurance policy issued by defendant company to plaintiff, covering three automobile trucks. Ther......
-
Wax v. Pope
... ... 565; Arnold v ... Potter, 22 Iowa 194; Davis v. Aetna Mut. F. Ins ... Co., 67 N.Y. 218, 34 A. 464; ... ...
-
Duval v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
...is here relied upon. The contract was neither made nor to be performed in this state, and the statute does not apply. Davis v. Insurance Company, 67 N. H. 218, 34 A. 464. But it is urged that, since the question is one of evidence, it relates to the remedy, and so the statute will be effect......