Cortis v. Van Derveer

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Cortis v. Van Derveer

91 N.Y.S. 743

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 17, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 91 N.Y.S. 743 (Cortis v. Van Derveer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cortis v. Van Derveer, 91 N.Y.S. 743 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

SCOTT, J.

Even if we assume, without deciding, that defendant became personally bound to pay the premiums, and that the contract of insurance was valid and enforceable, 'no right of action: is shown in plaintiffs. They were merely brokers acting as agents for some foreign insurance companies. The premiums constituted [744]*744the consideration for the contract of insurance. That contract'was between the foreign insurance companies and the railway company, and the premiums became due, not to the brokers, but to the companies who became the insurers. Whatever claim there is consists of the 'claim of these insurers against the insured (and perhaps also against defendant) for the premiums. The plaintiffs were not the insurers, and had no claim as such to the premiums. The case entirely fails' to show that they have acquired any right from the insurers to collect them.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

SCOTT, J.

Even if we assume, without deciding, that defendant became personally bound to pay the premiums, and that the contract of insurance was valid and enforceable, 'no right of action: is shown in plaintiffs. They were merely brokers acting as agents for some foreign insurance companies. The premiums constituted [744]*744the consideration for the contract of insurance. That contract'was between the foreign insurance companies and the railway company, and the premiums became due, not to the brokers, but to the companies who became the insurers. Whatever claim there is consists of the 'claim of these insurers against the insured (and perhaps also against defendant) for the premiums. The plaintiffs were not the insurers, and had no claim as such to the premiums. The case entirely fails' to show that they have acquired any right from the insurers to collect them.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 N.Y.S. 743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cortis-v-van-derveer-nyappterm-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack