True v. Manhattan Fire Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 August 1885 |
| Citation | 26 F. 83 |
| Parties | TRUE v. MANHATTAN FIRE INS. CO. [1] |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
True v Manhattan Fire Ins. Co. is an action upon a policy of insurance. It is averred that the Manhattan Company issued to the plaintiff a policy upon certain property in Poncha Springs, and thereafter, and before the loss occurred, the same property was reinsured in the Phoenix Company. The defendants answered separately, denying the matters alleged in the complaint, and then setting up a separate defense that after the policy was made, and before the loss, plaintiff assigned and transferred his policy to his brother, whose Christian name is to the defendant unknown, which assignment was sanctioned and assented to by the Manhattan Company, and that the brother remained the owner of the policy until after loss occurred. To that the plaintiff replied that the assignment of the policy was to secure a loan made by his brother to him, which was then secured upon the property insured in and by said policy, and that before the institution of the suit the plaintiff paid off and discharged the loan which he had theretofore obtained, and as collateral to secure the payment for which he had transferred said policy to said H. A. True. Thereupon the said H. A. True reconveyed and made over the said policy and all rights to recover any sum that might be due and payable therefor. There is a demurrer to this replication.
An assignment of a policy as a security of a loan of money is not one which is forbidden by the usual provision in policies to the effect that if any assignment be made without the written consent of the company, it shall work a forfeiture of the policy. That clause is held to relate only to such assignments as divest the assignor of all interest in the policy and in the property. If he make sale of the property and thereupon assign the policy to the purchaser, without the consent of the company, it will avoid his policy. But any transfer which does not have the effect of divesting him of all interest in the property, if, notwithstanding the transfer, he still retains an insurable interest in the property, it does not have the effect. The reason is, the company is only entitled to know when the property passes into the hands of another, so that the risk may depend upon the other, instead of the person to whom the policy was issued. To borrow money upon the premises does...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. Phoenix Assur. Co.
...... . FIRE. INSURANCE-APPLICATION FOR INSURANCE-PROOF OF LOSS-WAIVER-SOLE. OWNER IN ...Clyne, 5 Idaho 59, 46 P. 1019;. Pearlstine v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 70 S.C. 75,. 49 S.E. 4, and cases cited.). . . ...Co., 71 Pa. 31; Bidend v. L. & L. P. & L. Ins. Co., 30 Cal. 76; True v. Manhattan Fire. Ins. Co., 26 F. 83; Ellis v. Kreutzinger, 27. Mo. ......
-
Aetna Ins. Co. v. Smith
...... exactly as proposed. There must be a meeting of the minds on. the same thing, and this is true of insurance as of other. contracts.". . . N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. McIntosh, 86 Miss. ... company and the insertion by the insurance company of a. clause payable in case of fire as the interest of the. mortgagee might appear, which was never complied with on the. part of ...245; 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 93; 27 Mo. 211; 72 Am. Dec. 270; True v. Manhattan F. Co. (C. C.), 26 F. 83, 19 Cyc. L. & Pro. 637;. Griffey v. N. Y. Century Insurance Co., 100 ......
-
Central Union Bank v. NEW YORK UNDERWRITERS'INS. CO.
...issued. Cooley's Briefs on Insurance (2d Ed.) vol. 2, pp. 1768, 1769; Ellis v. Kreutzinger, 27 Mo. 311, 72 Am. Dec. 270; True v. Manhattan Fire Ins. Co. (C. C.) 26 F. 83; Stokes v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., 130 S. C. 521, 126 S. E. In the simple case of pledge or assignment of a ......
-
Humboldt Fire Ins. Co. v. W.H. Ashley Silk Co.
...in whose favor the forfeiture is claimed. Long v. Farmers' State Bank, 147 F. 360, 77 C.C.A. 538, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 585; True v. Manhattan Fire Ins. Co. (C.C.) 26 F. 83; Matthews v. Capital Fire Ins. Co., 115 Wis. 272, N.W. 675. It was also insisted at the argument that the plaintiff did not ......