Hernandez v. New York Mut. Ins. Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Hernandez v. New York Mut. Ins. Co.

12 F. Cas. 34, 6 Blatchf. 326, 1869 U.S. App. LEXIS 1314

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedMarch 19, 1869

StatusPublished

This text of 12 F. Cas. 34 (Hernandez v. New York Mut. Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hernandez v. New York Mut. Ins. Co., 12 F. Cas. 34, 6 Blatchf. 326, 1869 U.S. App. LEXIS 1314 (circtsdny 1869).

Pincite

Opinion

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

The written words in this case, “liable for any portion thrown overboard,” have no legal meaning or effect different from the words, “liable for loss of part by jettison;” and the mode of describing the valuation of the lemons and raisins in the policy in this case, is not different, in substance, from that found in the policy in the other case. All the considerations commented on in the opinion in that case have equal application in this case, except the one as to the provision for a return of premium in case of a prior insurance, the insurance in this case being the prior one. The valuation in the policy in this case, áfter naming the valuation per box, carries out the total valuation, which was not done in the other case, but such total valuation, and such valuation per box, are equally parts of the valuation, and the putting in of the total valuation can make no difference as to the effect of the valuation per box on the question of a separate insurance of each box.

The defendants, at the trial, offered in evidence the written applications made by the plaintiffs to the defendants for the insurance made in this case, but they were excluded by the court. As the judgment will be for the defendants, the point is unimportant Judgment for defendants.

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

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

The written words in this case, “liable for any portion thrown overboard,” have no legal meaning or effect different from the words, “liable for loss of part by jettison;” and the mode of describing the valuation of the lemons and raisins in the policy in this case, is not different, in substance, from that found in the policy in the other case. All the considerations commented on in the opinion in that case have equal application in this case, except the one as to the provision for a return of premium in case of a prior insurance, the insurance in this case being the prior one. The valuation in the policy in this case, áfter naming the valuation per box, carries out the total valuation, which was not done in the other case, but such total valuation, and such valuation per box, are equally parts of the valuation, and the putting in of the total valuation can make no difference as to the effect of the valuation per box on the question of a separate insurance of each box.

The defendants, at the trial, offered in evidence the written applications made by the plaintiffs to the defendants for the insurance made in this case, but they were excluded by the court. As the judgment will be for the defendants, the point is unimportant Judgment for defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 F. Cas. 34, 6 Blatchf. 326, 1869 U.S. App. LEXIS 1314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-v-new-york-mut-ins-co-circtsdny-1869.