Home Insurance Company v. Baltimore Warehouse Company

Decision Date01 October 1876
Citation93 U.S. 527,23 L.Ed. 868
PartiesHOME INSURANCE COMPANY v. BALTIMORE WAREHOUSE COMPANY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

{BALT'O. WAREHOUSE Co. CEAL. }

JAMES HOOPER, president.

JAMES B. EDWARDS, Secretary and Registrar.

Page 530-Continued

1168.

Copy.]

BALTIMORE, _____ 18 __.

Deliver to the order of _____ the within-described merchandise.

(Signed) HOUGH, CLENDENING, & Co.

Witness:

Hough, Clendening, & Co., cotton $52,863.00

Hawkins, Williamson, & Co., cotton 26,861.16

Elliott Bros., 8,188.81

McCloud & Co., cotton 1,862.35

F. L. Brauns & Co., cotton 2,888.00

W. B. Hooper, cotton 320.97

F. W. Beck & Co., tobacco 6,000.00

Total $98,984.29- That all of said property was destroyed by fire on the 18th of July, 1870, except that embraced in a salvage statement made by a committee appointed by the underwriters, and signed by George B. Coale for the committee.

Previously to and at the time of said fire, the defendant in error held a policy, substantially in the same form as that now in suit, issued by the Associated Firemen's Insurance Company of Baltimore, in the sum of $10,000. The following policies in the names of other parties as assured, covering only specific portions of said property hereinafter mentioned, were in force, viz.:——

On the property stored by Elliott Bros., three policies of the following companies, viz., in name of Elliott Bros.:——

W. H., Potomac Ins. Co. for........ $14,000

W. H., Peabody Ins. Co. for.......... 3,500

W. H., Royal Ins. Co. for............ 3,400

---------

$20,900

On the property stored by F W. Beck & Co. policies in their name as assured in——

W. H., The People's Ins. Co. for $6,000

On that of Hough, Clendening, & Co. in their name as assured: —

W. H., The Hartford Ins. Co. for $3,500

W. H., The Franklin Ins. Co. for 3,500

W. H., The People's Ins. Co. for 2,500

W. H., The Potomac Ins. Co. for 900

W. H., The Peabody Ins. Co. for 6,000

W. H., The City Ins. Co for 7,700

W. H., The Washington Ins. Co for 7,300

W. H., The Atlantic (1 $3,500 and 1 for $6,000)= 9,500

W. H., The Consolidated Ins. Co. for 12,100

W. H., The Home Ins. Co. of Baltimore for 6,000

W. H., The Citizens' Ins. Co. of Baltimore for 1,400

Said last-mentioned policies covered 676 bales of cotton, if the two $6,000 policies of the Peabody and Atlantic were each on 110 separate bales, and 566 bales, if they both were only the same 110 bales, and that said cotton was worth at the time of the fire $78.32 per bale.

On the property stored by Hawkins, Williamson, & Co. in their name as assured:——- Royal Ins. Co. for $10,000

Western Ins. Co. for 6,500

W. H., Connecticut Ins. Co. for 16,000

W. H., Peabody Ins. Co. for 5,000

W. H., Hartford Ins. Co. for 3,000

W. H., Home Ins. Co. of Baltimore for 5,000

On the property stored by F. L. Brauns & Co. in their name as assured:——

People's Ins. Co. for $2,888

It was also admitted that the defendant in error had advanced to the owners of said property, on the deposit thereof, the sums hereinafter named, and that it held the said property as security therefor, viz.:——

To Hough, Clendening, & Co......... $48,720

" Hawkins, Williamson, & Co........ 16,800

" McCloud & Co...................... 1,480

" F....

To continue reading

Request your trial
162 cases
  • Factor v. CIR
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • July 27, 1960
    ...other cases see Notes 56 to 59, infra. 56 West v. Smith, 1878, 101 U.S. 263, 273, 25 L.Ed. 809. 57 Home Insurance Company v. Baltimore Warehouse Company, 1876, 93 U.S. 527, 548, 23 L.Ed. 868. A similar situation arose in a case decided by Chief Judge Charles N. Pray of the District Court of......
  • Texas City Term. Ry. Co. v. American Equit. Assur. Co., Civ. A. No. 542.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • April 25, 1955
    ...in the property, not the property itself. The terms of this policy clearly distinguish the instant case from Home Ins. Co. v. Baltimore Warehouse Co., 93 U.S. 527, 23 L.Ed. 868, and other cases, upon which plaintiff relied. In that line of cases, the policies insured the property, that is, ......
  • Cumis Ins. Soc., Inc. v. Republic Nat. Bank of Dallas
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • May 4, 1972
    ...592 (1908).5 California Ins. Co. v. Union Compress Co., 133 U.S. 387, 10 S.Ct. 365, 33 L.Ed. 730 (1889); Home Insurance Co. v. Baltimore Warehouse Co., 93 U.S. 527, 23 L.Ed. 868 (1876); Hudiburg Chevrolet, Inc. v. Globe Indem. Co., 394 S.W.2d 792 (Tex.Sup.1965); Germania Ins. Co. v. Anderso......
  • United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Mundell Terminal Servs., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • December 21, 2012
    ...often characterizes a bailee's interest in the bailed goods as a “special” or “limited” interest. Id.;Home Ins. Co. v. Baltimore Warehouse Co., 93 U.S. 527, 541, 23 L.Ed. 868 (1876). A bailee, if it wishes, may also insure only its limited interest in the bailed goods by employing express l......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT