Hosford v. Germania Fire Ins Co

• Decision Date: 14 May 1888
• Citation: 8 S.Ct. 1199,32 L.Ed. 196,127 U.S. 399
• Parties: HOSFORD et al. v. GERMANIA FIRE INS. CO. et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

8 S.Ct. 1199

127 U.S. 399

32 L.Ed. 196

HOSFORD et al. v. GERMANIA FIRE INS. CO. et al.

May 14, 1888.

[Statement of Case from pages 399-402 intentionally omitted] T. M. Marquett and Isham Reavis, for plaintiffs in error.

S. Shellabarger and I. M. Wilson, for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

If this policy is valid, each of the defendants was severally liable for no more than the sum of $4,000, and interest thereon to the date of the judgment in the circuit court. The whole amount recoverable against either defendant in that court being less than $5,000, this court has no jurisdiction of the case, except by reason of the certificate of division of opinion. Ex parte Insurance Co., 117 U. S. 367, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 772; Dow v. Johnson, 100 U. S. 158; Bank v. Knapp, 119 U. S. 357, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 274. The first question certified is too general to be answered, because it undertakes to refer the whole case to the decision of this court. Jewell v. Knight, 123 U. S. 426, ante, 193. Nothing is open for consideration, therefore, but the second and third questions, upon which the opinions of the judges of the circuit court were opposed. The whole scope of that clause of the policy which requires the interest of the assured, if 'other than the entire, unconditional, and sole ownership of the property for the use and benefit of the assured,' or if 'incumbered by any lien, whether by deed of trust, mortgage, or otherwise,' to be so represented by thea ssured and so expressed in the policy, is to ascertain whether his interest comes within either of these two descriptions, and not to call for information as to the nature or amount of any incumbrances. It is therefore fully satisfied by the statements in the application that there is an incumbrance on the property, and what the amount of mortgage is, and by the expression in the policy making the insurance payable to a mortgagee. Williams v. Insurance Co., 107 Mass. 377. By the terms of this policy, and of the application made part thereof, the answers to the questions in the application are doubtless warranties, to be strictly complied with. But this court is unanimously of opinion that, so far as regards either of the matters presented for its decision in the present case, these answers are direct, full, and true. The only questions put as to incumbrances are,—First, the general one, 'Is there any incumbrance on the property?' which is truly answered, 'Yes;' and, second, the particular one, 'If...