Imperial Fire Ins. Co. v. Murray
| Decision Date | 07 May 1873 |
| Citation | 73 Pa. 13 |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
| Parties | The Imperial Fire Insurance Co. <I>versus</I> Murray <I>et al.</I> |
Before READ, C. J., AGNEW, WILLIAMS and MERCUR, JJ. SHARSWOOD, J., at Nisi Prius
Writs of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Columbia county: Of September Term 1872, No. 2 and 5.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
James Ryon , for plaintiffs in error.
G. R. Kaercher and F. W. Hughes (with whom was G. E. Farquhar), for defendants in error.
These two cases were argued together. The facts and principles of law involved are substantially the same in each. The same property is covered by each policy; each is for one year from the 17th of September 1869. The loss occurred January 19th 1870.
The plaintiffs have filed twenty-three assignments of error. We will not consider them separately. The twenty-second and twenty-third assignments are based upon an alleged false representation in the application. As we are not furnished with a copy of the application, we are unable to determine with certainty how far the facts go towards sustaining the allegation. As we understand the whole evidence bearing upon that branch of the case, we cannot see that the court committed any error in holding, that if the applicants fairly represented what they honestly believed, it would not defeat the action, and that it was not such a statement of a material fact as amounted to a warranty.
All the other assignments, except the first, sixth and seventh, may be considered together. They relate to the value of the interest insured. That the property was of much greater value than the amount of the insurance, does not admit of a question under the evidence; besides, the jury has so found. It is urged, however, by the plaintiffs, that the interest of the lessees therein was of much less value, and that that lesser value only was covered by the insurance. They claim that the value of the lessees' interest therein was measured by the value of the use thereof, from the time of the loss until the expiration of their term. In this view we cannot concur. The use of the property for the remainder of the term, by no means fixed or defined its value as to them. They had not only a right to its use and enjoyment, but had also assumed an obligation to return and redeliver it in good order and condition at the expiration of the term. If they failed so to do, they were liable to their lessors for its full value. If they redeliver according to the requirements of their lease, they would be discharged from that obligation. They then had a large value in the property superadded to that of its use. Hence the court was correct in charging that the insurable interest of the lessees was to the extent of the value of the property which they were bound to replace.
The right of the insured and the liability of the companies, were fixed at the time of the loss, provided the requisite notices and proofs were furnished. Such being the case, the evidence referred to in the fifth assignment of error is wholly irrelevant. No arrangement made between the Locust Mountain Coal and Iron Company of the one part, and Goddard & Draper of the other part, after the expiration of the term of the defendants in error, relieved them from their obligations to return the leased property to Goddard & Draper, or pay them its value. The coal breaker, engines, boilers, pumping and hoisting machinery, apparatus and improvements, leased to the defendants in error, were the property of Goddard & Draper, and not the property of the Locust Mountain Coal and Iron Company. If the latter took possession of the leased premises, and released the former from all liability, it was for a valuable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nickell v. Phoenix Insurance Company of Brooklyn
... ... power to waive the furnishing of proofs of loss. Wood on Ins ... [1 Ed.], p. 730; Wood on Ins. [2 Ed.], secs. 429 and 447; ... at Marceline, Missouri, against loss or damage by fire, for ... one year, commencing April 20, 1894. William Taylor, who ... Co. v ... Coates, 14 Md. 285; Ins. Co. v. Murray, 73 Pa ... 13; Ins. Co. v. O'Connor, 29 Mich. 241; Ide ... v. Ins. Co., ... ...
-
Hare & Chase v. National Surety Co.
...Keatley v. Grand Fraternity (D. C.) 198 F. 264; Id. (D. C.) 198 F. 272. The law of fire insurance seems to be the same. Imperial Fire Ins. Co. v. Murray (1873) 73 Pa. 13. It may, accordingly, be taken as established doctrine in Pennsylvania that the strict rules of marine insurance have bee......
-
Mississippi Fire Ins. Co. v. Planters' Bank of Tunica
... ... 277] that the above contention is true, ... are: Hidden v. Slater Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 2 Cliff ... 266; Ely v. Ely, 80 Ill. 532; Imperial Fire Ins ... Co. v. Murray, 73 Pa. 13; May on Insurance, sec. 83 ... If this ... court should go to the bottom of what is or is not a ... ...
-
Dowling v. Merchants Insurance Co. of Newark, N.J.
...v. Niag. Dist. Ins. Co., 39 U.C.Q.B. 483; 2 Biddle on Ins. sec. 1136; Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Updegraff, 43 Pa. 350; Imp. Fire Ins. v. Murray, 73 Pa. 13; F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Whitehill, 25 Ill. 466; 2 Biddle on Ins. secs. 1136, 1139; Farmers' & Mechanics' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Meckes, 10 W.N.C.......