Dube v. Mascoma Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 July 1888 |
| Parties | DUBE v. MASCOMA MUT. FIRE INS. CO. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Assumpsit on a policy of insurance on the plaintiff's stock of goods contained in a store in Suncook for one year from March 13, 1886. The property insured was totally destroyed by fire, January 11, 1887. The policy contained a provision that it should be void if, without the assent of the company "said property shall be sold, or this policy assigned." January 1, 1887, the plaintiff made an assignment for the benefit of his creditors, under the statute, and on the same day a messenger was appointed to take charge of the property. The defendants moved for a nonsuit on the ground that the evidence showed an alienation of the property, and an assignment of the policy without the assent of the company, before the loss occurred. The motion was granted pro forma, and the plaintiff excepted.
H. G. Sargent and Wm. L. Foster, for plaintiff. W. H Cotton and Chase & Streeter, for defendant.
The policy, which is the contract of insurance, provides, among other things, that it shall be void if it is assigned without the consent of the company. Ten days before the loss by fire the plaintiff assigned all his property, under the insolvent laws of the state, for the benefit of his creditors. By that assignment his property became vested in the judge of probate, and in such assignee as the judge might appoint, (Laws 1885, c. 85, § 1,) and, however made or expressed, the assignment must be construed to pass all the plaintiff's property not by law exempt from attachment. Gen. Laws, c. 140, § 1. The plaintiff must be held to have intended an assignment as full and complete as the statute required; and the requirement to construe the assignment, "however made or expressed," as transferring his property not by law exempt from attachment, leaves no room for excluding from its operation any property or right or interest in any property whatever not embraced within the exception. The policy of insurance is a contract which gave him a valuable right, and was a part of his property not within the exception exempting it from attachment, and was included within the assignment. The policy of insurance, being a contract of indemnity, and personal with the insured, did not pass by the transfer or assignment of the property insured as incident to it, but as an integral part of the plaintiff's property, all of which was assigned. The assignment was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paxton & Vierling Steel Co. v. Great Am. Ins.
...by involuntary transfers in bankruptcy to which the insurer had not expressly consented. Compare, Dube v. Mascoma Mutual Fund Insurance Co., 64 N.H. 527, 528, 15 A. 141, 142 (1888) (assignment for the benefit of creditors is not a transfer by operation of law outside the scope of a policy's......
-
Boston & M. R. R. v. N. R. R.
...has been treated as unquestionable. Sargent v. Fire Ins. Co., 82 N. H. 489, 136 A. 124; Gale v. Ins. Co., 41 N. H. 170; Dube v. Fire Ins. Co., 64 N. H. 527, 15 A. 141, 1 L. R, A. 57; Blanchard V. Fire Ins. Co., 33 N. H. 9. A like situation has prevailed as to leases. Boston, C. & M. R. Co. ......
-
Margolis v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
...make an assignment without consent 'void, and so no assignment,' as claimed by the defendants. Dube v. Mascoma Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 64 N.H. 527, 528, 15 A. 141, 142, 1 L.R.A. 57. Such an assignment, made in connection with the sale of the insured property, operates to transfer ownership of......
- Bills v. Putnam