Thatch v. Metropole Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 January 1882 |
| Citation | 11 F. 29 |
| Parties | THATCH v. METROPOLE INS. CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
Hugh Butler, for plaintiff.
Charles & Dillon, for defendant.
HALLETT D.J.
This is an action upon a policy of insurance. Plaintiff alleges that Emma V. B. Oray, on the twenty-first day of August, A.D 1880, obtained of the defendant insurance on certain premises in the town of Idaho Springs. The amount of the insurance is not stated, I believe, but it is alleged that the policy provided for the payment to plaintiff in case of loss or damage by fire of some sum, as his interest might appear. It is alleged that plaintiff was a creditor of Emma Oray, and that the indebtedness was secured by a trust deed on these premises; that the premises were destroyed by fire, and plaintiff's loss thereby exceeds the sum of $2,000. There is no definite information in the complaint as to the amount of the insurance, or the amount of the indebtedness due plaintiff from the party insured. It does appear that the policy was taken out by Emma Oray and paid for by her. She paid the premium. Plaintiff demands judgment of $2,000.
If it appeared in the complaint that insurance was taken out by this woman, and that the stipulation of the policy is that the loss, if any should occur, should be paid to the plaintiff, all of it-- the entire sum-- a question would be presented as to the right of the plaintiff to recover on such an instrument which is not very well settled in the authorities. Perhaps the weight of authority is that in such case the plaintiff would be entitled to maintain the action; that is to say, if two persons contract for the benefit of a third, the third party although a stranger to the consideration, may maintain a suit upon that contract. But that is not the case as presented here. It is entirely consistent with the allegations of this complaint that the sum due the plaintiff was much less than the amount for which the policy of insurance was issued. And at all events, whatever the fact may be as to that, the policy of insurance provided for payment to the plaintiff as his interest might appear. At the time of insurance he was a creditor of the party taking out the policy, and his indebtedness might be entirely extinguished or greatly reduced before the policy should mature. That was, perhaps the reason for putting in the policy this clause in this phraseology, 'payment should be made to him as his interest might appear,'-- that is, more or less, the sum due him, whatever it might be; and upon that no right of action can arise...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schmidt v. Johnstone
... ... v. Shaw, 35 Mich. 431; 23 Cyc. 1174, note 85; ... Continental Ins. Co. v. H. M. Loud & Sons Lumber Co ... 93 Mich. 139, 32 Am. St. Rep. 494, 53 N.W. 394; Dils v ... Co ... v. Nichols, 57 Ill. 464; Mandeville v. Welch, 5 ... Wheat. 277, 5 L. ed. 87; Thatch v. Metropole Ins. Co. 3 ... McCrary, 387, 11 F. 29; Day v. Brenton, 102 ... Iowa 482, 63 Am ... ...
-
German Fire Ins. Co. v. Bullene, Moore
...v. Welch, 5 Wheat. 277, 5 L.Ed. 87; Insurance Co. v. Davenport, 37 Mich. 609; Insurance Co. v. Felrath, 77 Ala. 194; Thatch v. Metropole Ins. Co., 11 F. 29; v. Insurance Co., 124 Mass. 61; Whitaker v. Hawley, 30 Kan. 317, 1 P. 508.) If we could say from the record brought here that this cas......
- Peck v. Girard Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
-
Equitable Fire Ins. Co. v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co.
...owner of the policy, is alone entitled to sue on it. T. has no right of action, and the complaint is bad on demurrer." See the same case in 11 F. 29. the many cases which hold that when a loss payable clause is attached to an insurance policy, and a loss occurs, the insured is the proper pa......