Drum v. Philadelphia Casualty Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Drum v. Philadelphia Casualty Co.

66 Misc. 143, 121 N.Y.S. 332

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 15, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 66 Misc. 143 (Drum v. Philadelphia Casualty Co.) 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

Drum v. Philadelphia Casualty Co., 66 Misc. 143, 121 N.Y.S. 332 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The policy contains a provision that “ Mo action shall lie against the Company as respects any loss or [144]*144expense under this Policy, unless it shall he brought by the Assured himself.” This was probably inserted in order to prevent assignments of doubtful claims to irresponsible parties for purposes of suit. Whatever its object, it binds the parties. Hence this suit, being by an assignee, must fail.

Present: Seabury, Guy and Whitney, JJ.

■Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

The policy contains a provision that “ Mo action shall lie against the Company as respects any loss or [144]*144expense under this Policy, unless it shall he brought by the Assured himself.” This was probably inserted in order to prevent assignments of doubtful claims to irresponsible parties for purposes of suit. Whatever its object, it binds the parties. Hence this suit, being by an assignee, must fail.

Present: Seabury, Guy and Whitney, JJ.

■Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 Misc. 143, 121 N.Y.S. 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drum-v-philadelphia-casualty-co-nyappterm-1910.