Bahr v. National Fire Insurance

29 N.Y.S. 1031, 87 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 309, 62 N.Y. St. Rep. 341, 80 Hun 309
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 27, 1894
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 29 N.Y.S. 1031 (Bahr v. National Fire Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bahr v. National Fire Insurance, 29 N.Y.S. 1031, 87 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 309, 62 N.Y. St. Rep. 341, 80 Hun 309 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Opinion

CULLEN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court affirming a judgment for the plaintiff by a justice of the peace of Brooklyn. The action was to recover $200, the insurance on a carriage. The defendant’s policy insured plaintiff on the carriage “while located as described herein, and not elsewhere, to wit, * * while contained in the frame building occupied as a wheelwright shop, on the south side of Grand street, about sixty feet east of Lagrange street, known as ‘Nos. 884-6 Grand St/ " The carriage was burned in a livery stable and horseshoeing shop, No. 856 Grand street, about a block and a half away from the place named in the policy. This judgment cannot stand. The location of the insured property was a warranty, a breach of which avoided the policy. Bryce v. Insurance Co., 55 N. Y. 240. The respondent, argues this case upon the theory of a mistake in the description of the premises made in the policy. I cannot find the slightest evidence of that fact. The only testimony as to the information given to the defendant when the policy was applied for is that of the defendant’s agent. He says that the location inserted in the policy is the location stated to him. There is nothing to show that the place where the fire occurred is the place intended to be described [1032]*1032in the policy. For aught that appears in the evidence, there may be a wheelwright’s shop at the exact location, and bearing the street numbers, named in the policy. The judgments of the county court as adjusted should be reversed, with costs. All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mayfield v. North River Insurance
239 N.W. 197 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1931)
Miller Bros. Construction Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.
155 A. 709 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1931)
American Surety Co. v. Patriotic Assurance Co.
150 N.E. 599 (New York Court of Appeals, 1926)
Astrin v. East New York Woodwork Manufacturing Co.
210 A.D. 720 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1924)
Neubeck v. Doscher
204 A.D. 617 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1923)
Shutts v. Milwaukee Mechanics Insurance
141 S.W. 15 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1911)
McIntyre v. Liverpool, London & Globe Insurance
110 S.W. 604 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1908)
Leventhal v. Home Insurance
32 Misc. 685 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1900)
Village of L'Anse v. Fire Ass'n
43 L.R.A. 838 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 N.Y.S. 1031, 87 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 309, 62 N.Y. St. Rep. 341, 80 Hun 309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bahr-v-national-fire-insurance-nysupct-1894.