Reed v. Williamsburg City Fire Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 12 March 1883 |
Citation | 74 Me. 537 |
Parties | CATHARINE A. REED v. WILLIAMSBURG CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
ON EXCEPTIONS, and on report on motion to set aside the verdict.
Assumpsit, writ dated June 24, 1880, on policy of insurance issued bye the defendant company through its Portland agent September 10, 1879, upon personal property, viz:
" Six hundred dollars on her household furniture; three hundred dollars on her printed books; seventy-five dollars on her parlor organ; twenty-five dollars on her sewing machine."
The verdict was for plaintiff, for eight hundred and four dollars.
The opinion states the material facts.
Ardon W. Coombs, for the plaintiff, on the exceptions, cited: R. S., c. 111, § 5; Stat. 1872, c. 71; Parson's Mer. Law, *509; Columbian Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, 1 Peters, S. C. 25; Cumberland Bone Co. v. Ins. Co. 64 Me. 470; Rule 18, S. J. C.; State v. Reed, 62 Me. 129; State v. Barnes, 29 Me. 561; State v. Watson, 63 Me. 128; Foye v. Southard, 64 Me. 389; Roberts v. Plaisted, 63 Me. 335.
M. P. Frank and I. W. Parker, for the defendant.
The presiding justice in his charge to the jury touching the point as to whether the policy was procured by fraud, used the following language: This language was suited to deceive the jury in this respect. It gave them to understand, and we believe they did so understand, that fraud can never be committed except by some active overt representation of the party committing it, precluding the idea that fraud may be committed by suppression of the truth and by the concealment of material facts, while that fraud may be so committed is a well established principle of law. Fletcher v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. 18 Pick. 419; Prentiss v. Russ, 16 Me. 30. " Good faith," says LORD MANSFIELD, (as quoted in 1 vol. of Philips on Insurance, page 233, second edition) " forbids either party by concealing what he knows, to draw the other into a bargain from his ignorance of the facts and he believing the contrary." See Ingersoll v. Barker, 21 Me. 474.
Among the articles of personal property insured was a parlor organ given to the plaintiff by her husband, which the husband purchased of another person by giving a note therefor, the note containing an agreement that the title in the organ should remain in the seller until the note became paid. At the date of the injury by fire, the organ had been in part but not fully paid for. The plaintiff was in possession of the property. We think the plaintiff had an insurable interest in it. We are not informed by the case that any provision of the policy...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Enoch
... ... 68 Minn. 373; 2 ... Wood, Ins., § 450 ... 5. The ... sixth instruction erred as to ... Holbrook v ... Ins. Co., 25 Minn. 229; Reed v ... Williamsburg City Fire Ins. Co., 74 Me. 537. See ... Tyler v ... ...
-
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Enoch
...absolute owner, had an insurable interest in the property covered by this policy. Holbrook v. Ins. Co., 25 Minn. 229; Reed v. Williamsburg City Fire Ins. Co., 74 Me. 537. See Tyler v. Ætna Ins. Co., 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 507; Berry v. American Central Ins. Co., 132 N. Y. 49, 30 N. E. 254, 28 Am.......
-
Sale v. Aurora & L. Tpk. Co.
... ... years, the owner of a turnpike road commencing at the city of Aurora, Dearborn county, and running thence through the ... ...
-
Peninsular Fire Ins. Co. v. Fowler
...in full, the vendee in possession has an insurable interest in the property, even though he has not fully paid for it. Reed v. Williamsburg City Fire Ins. Co., 74 Me. 537. But under the terms of the policy the insured must have the 'unconditional and sole ownership' of the property. The int......