Swain v. Security Live-stock Ins. Co.

Decision Date28 February 1896
PartiesSWAIN et al. v. SECURITY LIVE-STOCK INS. CO.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
COUNSEL

Geo. Fred. Williams and G.W. Anderson, for plaintiffs.

J. Henry Taylor, for defendant.

OPINION

ALLEN, J.

The plaintiffs' horse was in charge of a trainer named Cox, and lived 20 hours after Cox knew that it was sick. No notice was given to the defendant until after the horse was dead. This was a plain failure to comply with the requirement of the policy, that "if the animal shall become sick or disabled the insured shall notify the company within fifteen hours." No fact appears tending to show a waiver by the defendant of this requirement. The clause bears some analogy to the time limit in ordinary policies for proofs of loss. The requirement was a valid one. Lohnes v. Insurance Co., 121 Mass. 439; Harnden v. Insurance Co., 164 Mass. 382, 41 N.E. 658; Davis v. Davis, 49 Me. 282. We do not determine or consider whether the 15 hours would begin to run before knowledge of the horse's sickness by the plaintiffs or their agent, or whether the notice must actually reach the defendant within the 15 hours. These questions are suggested by the plaintiffs, but do not arise upon the facts of the case. Judgment for the defendant.

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Mccain v. Hartford Live Stock Ins. Co
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 25, 1925
    ...Live Stock Ins. Co. v. Bartlow, 60 Ind. App. 233, 110 N. E. 224; Hensel v. Live Stock Ins. Co., 219 111. App. 77; Swain v. Live Stock Ins. Co., 165 Mass. 321, 43 N. E. 105; Hough v. Live Stock Ins. Co., 230 111. App. 348; Binnie v. Live Stock Ins. Co., 213 111. App. 75. As stated in Ormond ......
  • Sheehan v. Commercial Travelers' Mut. Acc. Ass'n
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • July 5, 1933
    ...excuse for noncompliance, or waiver of the defence based upon noncompliance was on the plaintiff. See Swain v. Security Life Stock Ins. Co., 165 Mass. 321, 323, 43 N. E. 105;Rocci v. Massachusetts Accident Co., 226 Mass. 545, 547, 551, 116 N. E. 477;McCarthy v. Rendle, 230 Mass. 35, 119 N. ......
  • McCain v. Hartford Live Stock Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 25, 1925
    ... ... 349; Live ... Stock Ins. Co. v. Bartlow, 60 Ind.App. 233, 110 N.E ... 224; Hensel v. Live Stock Ins. Co., 219 Ill.App. 77; ... Swain v. Live Stock Ins. Co., 165 Mass. 321, 43 N.E ... 105; Hough v. Live Stock Ins. Co., 230 Ill.App. 348; ... Binnie v. Live Stock Ins. Co., 213 ... ...
  • Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. Harkins, 93
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 10, 1968
    ...Ins. Co., 87 Iowa 358, 54 N.W. 349; Alston v. Northwestern Live Stock Ins. Co., 7 Kan.App. 179, 53 P. 784; Swain v. Security Live-Stock Ins. Co., 165 Mass. 321, 43 N.E. 105. If the Henderson case establishes a Texas 'rule of reasonableness,' can the delay here presented be said to be reason......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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