Creem v. . the Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York

New York Court of Appeals

Creem v. . the Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York

100 N.E. 454, 206 N.Y. 733, 1912 N.Y. LEXIS 1163

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 26, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 100 N.E. 454 (Creem v. . the Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Creem v. . the Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, 100 N.E. 454, 206 N.Y. 733, 1912 N.Y. LEXIS 1163 (N.Y. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Haight, J.

The chief question presented upon this review is as to whether the action was commenced within the time limited by the express provisions of the policy, and if not, as to whether the transaction between Nadal and Oreem amounted to a waiver of the provision of the policy limiting the time' within which a suit could be brought. We are unwilling to adopt a construction of this policy which would bar the action before it arose. Such could not have been the honest intent of the parties. It appearing that no action arose on behalf of the plaintiffs against the defendant until final judgment had been entered against them on the 25th day of June, 1906, and also that the plaintiffs brought this action within thirty days thereafter, they complied with the requirements of the provision of the policy, and, therefore, their action was not barred. This question has been fully discussed *737 in the prevailing opinion of Hiller, J., below, who, though feeling bound by the previous decision of this case in that court, expresses his personal view to this effect. In this respect we approve and adopt the same. This conclusion renders it unnecessary to consider the other questions discussed in his opinion.

As to the plaintiffs’ appeal, in which the claim is made that they should be awarded judgment for the expenses incurred in defending the action of the bridge company, in which the verdict was entered in their favor, we have concluded that their claim should he allowed at the sura of $582.94.

The judgment should he modified by increasing the same in the amount of $582.94, with interest from date of judgment, and as so modified affirmed, with costs to the plaintiffs.

Cullen, Oh. J., Vann, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase and Collin, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Haight, J.

The chief question presented upon this review is as to whether the action was commenced within the time limited by the express provisions of the policy, and if not, as to whether the transaction between Nadal and Oreem amounted to a waiver of the provision of the policy limiting the time' within which a suit could be brought. We are unwilling to adopt a construction of this policy which would bar the action before it arose. Such could not have been the honest intent of the parties. It appearing that no action arose on behalf of the plaintiffs against the defendant until final judgment had been entered against them on the 25th day of June, 1906, and also that the plaintiffs brought this action within thirty days thereafter, they complied with the requirements of the provision of the policy, and, therefore, their action was not barred. This question has been fully discussed *737 in the prevailing opinion of Hiller, J., below, who, though feeling bound by the previous decision of this case in that court, expresses his personal view to this effect. In this respect we approve and adopt the same. This conclusion renders it unnecessary to consider the other questions discussed in his opinion.

As to the plaintiffs’ appeal, in which the claim is made that they should be awarded judgment for the expenses incurred in defending the action of the bridge company, in which the verdict was entered in their favor, we have concluded that their claim should he allowed at the sura of $582.94.

The judgment should he modified by increasing the same in the amount of $582.94, with interest from date of judgment, and as so modified affirmed, with costs to the plaintiffs.

Cullen, Oh. J., Vann, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase and Collin, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 N.E. 454, 206 N.Y. 733, 1912 N.Y. LEXIS 1163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/creem-v-the-fidelity-and-casualty-company-of-new-york-ny-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack