Reitenbach v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 09 September 1880 |
| Citation | 129 Mass. 316 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | John M. Reitenbach & others v. Francis M. Johnson & others |
Judgment for the defendants.
H. D Hyde, for the plaintiffs.
R. R Bishop, for the defendants.
The plaintiffs seek in this action to recover a portion of certain insurance money, received by the defendants, and which they contend was paid to the defendants for them and as their agents.
It appears from the agreed statement of facts that the defendants effected insurance, in their own name, to the amount of $ 165,000, upon merchandise contained in their warehouse in Boston. It was described in the policies of insurance as "merchandise, principally hides and leather, their own, or held by them in trust, or on commission, or sold but not removed from the building." The warehouse, with its contents, was totally destroyed by fire in November 1872. At the time of the loss, it contained goods belonging to the defendants, and goods consigned to them for sale, amounting in value to the sum of $ 174,073, and goods sold but not removed, of the value of $ 30,551. Among the goods sold but not removed were certain goods of the plaintiffs, which they had purchased of the defendants. The defendants rendered to the insurers a statement of loss, which included all the goods in the building at the time of the fire, viz.: their own goods, goods consigned to them, and goods sold but not removed; and the insurers settled, as for a total loss, to the amount of $ 165,000. Some of the insurance companies were rendered insolvent by the fire, and the defendants received but sixty-three per cent of this amount. The goods owned by, and consigned to, the defendants, being of greater value than the total amount of insurance, the adjusters testified that the same amount would have been allowed, if the "goods sold but not removed" had not been included in the proof of loss.
The facts find that the defendants were bound by contract with their consignors to insure all their consignments, and, as the amount of insurance on the face of the policies, as well as the sum actually received from the insurers, was not sufficient to cover the loss on their own goods and the goods consigned to them, the sum received was applied to indemnify themselves and their consignors, and no portion of it was applied for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Stewart
...Ins. Co., 1 Hall (N.Y.) 94 at 151; Catlett v. Pacific Ins. Co., 1 Wendell (N.Y.) 561; DeBolle v. Pa. Ins. Co., 4 Whart. 68; Reitenbach v. Johnson, 129 Mass. 316; Pittman v. Harris, 24 Tex. Civil Appeal Reports The terms of the written contract in this case are not conclusive of the meaning ......
-
Getts v. Champion
...25 N.H. 169; Waring v. Indemnity F. Ins. Co. 45 N.Y. 606, 6 Am. Rep. 146; Lockhart v. Cooper, 87 N.C. 149, 42 Am. Rep. 514; Reitenbach v. Johnson, 129 Mass. 316; 12 Am. & Enc. Law, 635, and cases cited; De Forest v. Fulton F. Ins. Co. 1 Hall, 110; The Sidney, 23 F. 88; Johnson v. Campbell, ......
-
Pittman v. Harris
...which defendants had notice before its force as a policy on his property had been impaired. Stilwell v. Staples, 19 N. Y. 407; Reitenback v. Johnson, 129 Mass. 316; California Ins. Co. v. Union Compress Co., 133 U. S. 387, 10 Sup. Ct. 365, 33 L. Ed. 730; Home Ins. Co. v. Baltimore Warehouse......
-
Spalding v. Miller
... ... of her interest, then it is clear that the plaintiff has no ... right in equity to any portion of it. Reitenbach v ... Johnson, 129 Mass. 316; Martineau v. Kitching, L. R ... 7 Q. B. 436; Stilwell v. Staples, 19 N.Y. 401 ... But if we assume that the sum ... ...