Garcelon v. Commercial Travelers' Eastern Accident Ass'n

67 N.E. 868, 184 Mass. 8, 1903 Mass. LEXIS 928
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJune 19, 1903
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 67 N.E. 868 (Garcelon v. Commercial Travelers' Eastern Accident Ass'n) 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
Garcelon v. Commercial Travelers' Eastern Accident Ass'n, 67 N.E. 868, 184 Mass. 8, 1903 Mass. LEXIS 928 (Mass. 1903).

Opinion

Barker, J.

1. Both before and since the statement in Burdon v. Massachusetts Safety Fund Association, 147 Mass. 360, that under a policy like that now in suit, “ it may be that an action at law would lie; but the more appropriate remedy would be by a proceeding in equity to compel the association to lay the assessment,” actions at law have been entertained in our courts upon similar policies. The fact that a plaintiff at law has another remedy in equity to which he might resort is not, commonly at least, a defence to his action at law. We think the policy sued on contains an implied contract on the part of the defendant that under the circumstances alleged it will levy an assessment, and that sufficient facts are alleged in the declaration to show a breach of that contract and that upon the admission as true of the allegations the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the sum of $2,500.

2. The declaration is in contract, and the allegations as to bad faith, fraudulent purpose and unlawful action on the part of the defendant make it neither a declaration in tort nor a declaration having one count in contract and one in tort.

3. We consider the amputation of an arm a little below the elbow to be the loss of an arm in the common acceptation of those words and within their meaning as used in the policy, which specifies merely the “ loss of an arm ” without mentioning whether the loss is by amputation below or above the elbow joint.

In our opinion the demurrer should have been overruled, and the case is remanded to the Superior Court with directions to reverse the order sustaining the demurrer and to enter an order overruling it.

So ordered.

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

Related

Mitchell v. Metal Assemblies, Inc.
151 N.W.2d 818 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1967)
Richardson v. LIBERTY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
119 S.E.2d 871 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1961)
Frank Edgar Co. v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.
11 Mass. App. Div. 288 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1946)
Peabody v. Arlington Police Relief Assoc., Inc.
11 Mass. App. Div. 128 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1946)
Spiselman v. Rabinowitz
270 A.D. 548 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1946)
Bowling v. Life Ins. Co. of Va.
177 N.E. 531 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1930)
Life Casualty Ins. Co. v. Peacock
124 So. 229 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1929)
Reno v. Holmes
214 N.W. 174 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1927)
Moore v. Ætna Life Insurance
146 P. 151 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1915)
Wiest v. United States Health & Accident Insurance
171 S.W. 570 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1914)
Meley's Case
219 Mass. 136 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Moshenz v. Independent Order Ahawas Israel
102 N.E. 324 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 N.E. 868, 184 Mass. 8, 1903 Mass. LEXIS 928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garcelon-v-commercial-travelers-eastern-accident-assn-mass-1903.