Williams v. North German Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 26 June 1885 |
| Citation | 24 F. 625 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS, Adm'r, etc., v. NORTH GERMAN INS. CO. [1] SAME v. LONDON & PROVINCIAL INS. CO. SAME v. MERCANTILE FIRE & MARINE INS. CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
Hagerman McCrary & Hagerman, for complainant.
Anderson Bros. & Davis, for defendant.
The plaintiff, Williams, obtained policies of insurance against the risk of fire on what is known as the 'Keokuk Elevator.' The policies read that the Keokuk Grain Elevator Company is insured against loss by fire to such and such amounts, and the loss, if any, is payable to Williams administrator. C. L. Williams is and was administrator of his father's estate. At the time of this insurance-- at the time it was made-- the elevator property had been sold under a decree of this court, and had been bought in by Williams as administrator for the estate. He bought it in and held the certificate of purchase, liable and subject to redemption at the end of the year from the date of sale. The condition of the title, therefore, was that the legal title was in the Keokuk Grain Elevator Company, and the interest of a purchaser under a defeasible claim was in Williams as administrator of his father's estate. Before the twelve months for which the insurance was to run would expire, it was obvious that the condition of the title must be changed either the elevator company must redeem and have a clear title to the property before the policy expired, or, failing to redeem, Williams would receive the deed and divest all rights of the elevator company. What took place was that the company did not redeem; that Williams received the deed to the property, and after he had got the deed, the elevator company being divested of all title, the fire took place, but during the life of the policy. All lawyers know that the elevator company, having no interest in the property at the time of the fire, was not insured, and could not collect any money, and could not sustain a suit for such recovery. Nor did the clause, 'Loss, if any, payable to C. L. Williams, ' change that legal relation. The loss mentioned in that form of policy was the loss of the Keokuk Grain Elevator Company. If this fire had taken place before the expiration of the time of redemption, the policy would have been effectual. It would have covered the loss of the elevator company. It would have been its loss. The loss would have been payable to Williams, but since the elevator company had no interest in it when the fire took place, there was no loss to it, and Williams was not insured by the policy.
Williams has filed a bill in chancery averring that the language of the policy in that respect did not represent the contract which was made. He avers that he made a contract with Maxwell, the insurance agent, to insure him and his interest in the property. He avers this with sufficient precision, and he swears to it in various forms and shapes, and other testimony is taken on the subject. The first question to be considered is whether, admitting the statements of the bill to be true, and taking for granted the testimony of Williams it was a case for relief in chancery. I remember the old decisions in the chancery courts of England on the subject that a written contract cannot be reformed in equity for a mistake in law. That is all the branch of the subject that embarrasses me to-day. But, without examining authorities abroad, the decisions of the supreme court of the United States must govern me, and I am inclined to think that doctrine has been much narrowed in modern times. Without going to great length at the present time, I shall state it about this way: Where an instrument fails to represent what both parties intended to have it represent, and one party had drawn up the instrument, and the other party merely accepted it, and the fault was on the part of the party drawing up the instrument, it can be reformed. It would be a harsh rule if a person applying to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michigan Idaho Lumber Company, a Corp. v. Northern Fire & Marine Insurance Company
... ... FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation Supreme Court of North Dakota October 21, 1916 ... Action ... to recover ... ... Smith v. Continental Ins. Co. 6 Dak. 433, 43 N.W ... 810; Hankins v. Rockford Ins. Co. 70 Wis ... Ins. Co. 141 N.C. 234, 54 S.E. 271, 8 ... Ann. Cas. 497; German-American Ins. Co. v. Humphrey, ... 62 Ark. 348, 54 Am. St. Rep. 297, 35 ... v. London & L. F. Ins. Co. 4 Idaho, 307, 39 P. 196; ... Williams v. North German Ins. Co. 24 F. 625; ... Born v. Home Ins. Co. 120 Iowa ... ...
-
Phoenix Assurance Company of London, Ltd. v. Boyette
... ... on the north half of block 30 and west half of block 31, ... Hope, Ark." The slip ... not a mutual mistake of fact. Ostrander on Ins. 109. If the ... agent had told the plaintiff that the policy would cover ... v. Public Parks Amusement Co., 63 ... Ark. 187, 37 S.W. 959; German-American Insurance Co ... v. Humphrey, 62 Ark. 348, 35 S.W. 428 ... ...
-
Mississippi Fire Ins. Co. v. Planters' Bank of Tunica
... ... became a part of the public policy of our nation ... Pritchet v. Insurance Co. of North America, 3 Yeates ... (Pa.) 457; Ellmaker v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co., 6 W ... & S. 439; Conn ... ...
-
Bellevue Roller-Mill Co. v. London & L. Fire Ins. Co.
... ... that they should be construed in favor of the assured ... ( Wallace v. German-American Ins. Co., 41 F. 742; ... Pennsylvania Mut. Co. v. Wiler, 100 Ind. 92, 50 Am ... Rep ... 116; ... Insurance Co. v. Smith, 3 Colo. 422; 17 Am. & Eng ... Ency. of Law, 28-33; Williams v. Insurance Co., 24 ... F. 625; Albion Lead Works v. Williamsburg City Fire Ins ... Co., 2 ... ...