Watertown Fire Ins. Co v. Cherry
| Citation | 84 Va. 72, 3 S.E. 876 |
| Case Date | November 17, 1887 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Virginia |
3 S.E. 876
84 Va. 72
Watertown Fire Ins. Co.
v.
Cherry and Wife.
Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.
November 17, 1887.
1. Insurance—Conditions—Vacancy of Premises.
A policy of insurance was conditioned to be void if the premises should become vacant, or if the policy should be assigned, or if the property should be incumbered, or if the title of the insured should be less than fee-simple, unless the written consent of the company should be indorsed. The conditions were broken, and no consent was indorsed. Held, that the policy was void, whether the breaches were willful and substantial or not.
2. Same.
A policy of insurance contained a condition that it should be void if the premises should become vacant, unless the consent of the company should be indorsed. At the time the fire occurred, the buildings insured were unoccupied, except that some fodder was stored in one of the outer buildings, and the premises were occasionally visited by a person who had the key. No written consent was indorsed on the policy. Held, that the policy was avoided.
3. Same.
A policy of insurance on buildings and furniture was conditioned to be void if the premises should become vacant, unless the written consent of the company should be indorsed. Insured vacated the premises, and moved the furniture to another house, and the insurance on the furniture was transferred, but no consent was indorsed to the premises being vacant. While vacant, the buildings were burned. Held, that the policy was void, as the transfer of the insurance on the furniture on its removal did not operate as a consent to the premises being vacant.
Error from circuit court, Norfolk county.
Jas. Christian, for plaintiff in error. Geo. Mcintosh and Borland & Wilcox, for defendants in error.
[3 S.E. 877]Lacy, J. This is a writ of error to a judgment of the circuit court of Norfolk city, rendered on the twenty-eighth day of November, 1885. The action was instituted in August, 1884, in the said court by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error, as the "Watertown Insurance Company, " and the declaration being drawn accordingly, the same was upon motion amended as against the "Watertown Fire insurance Company, " and the case proceeded. The policy was issued on the sixth day of November, 1880, and was upon certain buildings situated on the alleged premises of the assured, Mrs. Cherry, and the furniture in the dwelling-house, which was one of the buildings insured, and was for $1,775, which included $500 on the furniture. The defendant pleaded non-assumpsit and several special pleas, which special pleas were first admitted by the court, and afterwards stricken out by the court, upon the ground that the defenses therein set forth were provable under the general issue. The policy provided that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. v. Buchanan, 2,193
...10 Am.St.Rep. 384; Continental Ins. Co. v. Kyle (Ind.) 24 N.E. 727, 9 L.R.A. 81, 19 Am.St.Rep.77; Watertown Fire Ins. Co. v. Cherry (Va.) 3 S.E. 876; Weidert v. State Ins. Co. (Ore.) 24 P. 242, 249, 20 Am.St.Rep. 809. Counsel for the insured neither concede nor controvert the conclusion las......
-
Frazier v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., Civil Action No. 96-0457-R.
...in her individual capacity and as the executor of the Estate of her mother, Sallie M. Stables. 2. See Watertown Fire Ins. Co. v. Cherry, 84 Va. 72, 75-76, 3 S.E. 876 (1887); Catalina Enterprises, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 67 F.3d 63 (4th Cir.1995) (applying Maryland law); American Mut......
-
Kemendo v. Western Assur. Co.
...performance of the one than the other,"—citing Hoose v. Insurance Co., 84 Mich. 317, 47 N. W. 587, and Insurance Co. v. Cherry, 84 Va. 75, 3 S. E. 876. In the above case from the supreme court of this state the literal construction of the iron-safe clause, requiring strict compliance, is ab......
-
Limburg v. German Fire Ins. Co.
...abandoned it, and afterward the house was burned, no one being then there. It was held that it was unoccupied. In Insurance Co. v. Cherry, 84 Va. 72, 3 S.E. 876, the premises insured consisted, in part, of a dwelling house. The evidence showed that the insured had moved out of the house; th......
-
Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. v. Buchanan, 2,193
...10 Am.St.Rep. 384; Continental Ins. Co. v. Kyle (Ind.) 24 N.E. 727, 9 L.R.A. 81, 19 Am.St.Rep.77; Watertown Fire Ins. Co. v. Cherry (Va.) 3 S.E. 876; Weidert v. State Ins. Co. (Ore.) 24 P. 242, 249, 20 Am.St.Rep. 809. Counsel for the insured neither concede nor controvert the conclusion las......
-
Frazier v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., Civil Action No. 96-0457-R.
...in her individual capacity and as the executor of the Estate of her mother, Sallie M. Stables. 2. See Watertown Fire Ins. Co. v. Cherry, 84 Va. 72, 75-76, 3 S.E. 876 (1887); Catalina Enterprises, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 67 F.3d 63 (4th Cir.1995) (applying Maryland law); American Mut......
-
Kemendo v. Western Assur. Co.
...performance of the one than the other,"—citing Hoose v. Insurance Co., 84 Mich. 317, 47 N. W. 587, and Insurance Co. v. Cherry, 84 Va. 75, 3 S. E. 876. In the above case from the supreme court of this state the literal construction of the iron-safe clause, requiring strict compliance, is ab......
-
Limburg v. German Fire Ins. Co.
...abandoned it, and afterward the house was burned, no one being then there. It was held that it was unoccupied. In Insurance Co. v. Cherry, 84 Va. 72, 3 S.E. 876, the premises insured consisted, in part, of a dwelling house. The evidence showed that the insured had moved out of the house; th......