Ithaca Fire Dep't v. Beecher

Decision Date26 June 1885
Citation2 N.E. 154,99 N.Y. 429
PartiesITHACA FIRE DEPARTMENT v. BEECHER and another.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERETAXATION-ASSESSMENT OF INSURANCE COMPANY FOR BENEFIT OF FIRE DEPARTMENT UNDER CHAPTER 465, LAWS 2/375-place of trial/.

The prosecution of parties doing an insurance business under chapter 465, Laws 1876, and chapter 153, Laws 1879, should be conducted in the place where the insured property is situate.

Bradford Almy, for appellant, Ithaca Fire Department.

W. C. Beecher, for respondents, Henry B. Beecher and another.

EARL, J.

It is provided by chapter 465, Laws 1875, as amended by chapter 359, Laws 1876, and chapter 153, Laws 1879, as follows:

Section 1. There shall be paid to the treasurer of the fire department of every city or incorporated village of this state, * * * by every person who shall act as agent for or on behalf of any individual or association of individuals not incorporated by or under the laws of this state, to effect insurance against loss or injury by fire upon property in this state, although such individual or association may be incorporated for that purpose by any other state or country, the sum of two dollars upon the hundred dollars, and at that rate upon the amount of all premiums which, during the year or part of a year ending on the last preceding first day of September, shall have been received by such agent or person, or received by any other person for him, or shall have been agreed to be paid for any insurance effected or agreed to be effected, or promised by him as such agent or otherwise to be effected, against loss or injury by fire upon property situate within the corporate limits of such city or village.

Sec. 2. No person shall, as agent or otherwise, for any individual, individuals, or association, effect, or agree to effect, any insurance upon any property situate in any city or incorporated village of this state, upon which the above duty is required to be paid; or, as agent or otherwise, procure such insurance to be effected,-until he shall have executed and delivered to the treasurer of the fire department of the city or village in which the property insured is situated, * * * a bond to such fire department in the penal sum of $500, with such sureties as such treasurer shall approve, with a condition that he will annually render to said treasurer, on the first day of November in each year, a just and true account, verified by his oath, that the same is true, of all premiums which, during the year ending on the first day of September preceding such report, shall have been received by him, or by any other person for him, or agreed to be paid for any insurance against loss or injury by fire upon property situate in such city or village which shall have been effected, or procured by him to be effected, for any individual, individuals, or association not incorporated by the laws of this state as aforesaid, and that he will annually, on the first day of November in each year, pay to said treasurer two dollars upon every hundred dollars, and at that rate upon the amount of such premiums.

Sec. 3. Every person who shall effect, agree to effect, promise, or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Julian v. Kansas City Star Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 27, 1908
    ...... Smith, 153 N.Y. 214; Railroad v. O'Bryan, . 112 Ga. 130; Ithaca Fire Dept. v. Beecher, 99 N.Y. 429; Bruill v. Ins. Co., 72 Wis. 430; ......
  • Bruil v. Nw. Mut. Relief Ass'n
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • October 9, 1888
    ...in the county where the debt was contracted. The debt is no part of the cause of action. Veeder v. Baker, 83 N. Y. 156;Fire Department v. Beecher, 99 N. Y. 429, 2 N. E. Rep. 154. So, also, in actions on sheriff's bonds. Bank v. Harrison, 1 Bush, 384;Foster v. Wade, 4 Bush, 628.Aldro Jenks, ......
  • Germania Life Ins. Co. v. Rae
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • June 26, 1885

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