Dailey v. Westchester Fire Insurance

131 Mass. 173, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 209
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedApril 11, 1881
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 131 Mass. 173 (Dailey v. Westchester Fire Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dailey v. Westchester Fire Insurance, 131 Mass. 173, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 209 (Mass. 1881).

Opinion

Colt, J.

This policy of fire insurance contained a clause which provided that it should become void “if the property” insured “should be sold.” When John Dailey, the plaintiff’s intestate, procured the insurance, the premises were subject to a mortgage to John Lyons, and the policy was on its face made payable to him in case of loss as mortgagee. After the death of Dailey, the land and building insured were conveyed by his heirs to Lyons, by a deed absolute in form and containing no mention of his mortgage and no declaration of trust in favor of the grantors. There is nothing to control the effect of this deed. It does not appear that it was given in consequence of fraud, or under any undue influence; or without a sufficient consideration ; or with the intention not to transfer what equity of redemption the grantors had; or to create a trust in their favor in the land itself. In the absence of fraud, such a conveyance is effectual to transfer the mortgagor’s right of redemption. [174]*174although as between mortgagor and mortgagee the transaction is suspiciously viewed in a court of equity. Falis v. Conway Ins. Co. 7 Allen, 46. Trull v. Skinner, 17 Pick. 213.

The testimony of Lyons to the effect that, when he took the deed, he agreed orally to sell the estate in the following May or June, and account to the heirs for the proceeds after paying his mortgage, does not show an intention to charge the estate with a trust, or operate to prevent the title of the whole, both legal and equitable, from vesting in him.

It follows that there was a sale of the property within the terms of the policy, which avoided the insurance.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Schanberg v. Automobile Insurance Co. of Hartford
285 Mass. 316 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1934)
Trustees of Thayer Academy v. Corporation of the Royal Exchange Assurance of London
183 N.E. 264 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)
Royal Insur. Co. v. Drury
132 A. 635 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1926)
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Ruddy
299 F. 189 (Eighth Circuit, 1924)
Scania Insurance v. Johnson
22 Colo. 476 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1896)
Brown v. Cotton & Woolen Manufacturers' Mutual Insurance Co. of New England
31 N.E. 691 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
131 Mass. 173, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dailey-v-westchester-fire-insurance-mass-1881.